h PRINCETON, N. J.
^ Pivrt of the
ADDISON ALRXA.NDER I>IBlURr,
which was presented by
Mkssrs. R. L, and a. Stuart.
o
I
I
Booh', N»,
sec
Owen
The
jus
10,699
, John, 1616-1683.
doctrine of
tification by faith
THE
DOCTRINE
OP
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
THE IMPUTATION
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST
EXPLAINED, CONFIRMED, AND VINDICATED.
BY JOHN OWEN, D.D.
FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.
f
PHILADELPHIA:
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION.
JAMES RUSSELL, PUBLISHING AGENT.
1841.
Printed by
WILLIAM 3. MARTIEN,
CONTENTS.
Advertisement to the First American Edition, ... 5
Preface, .-. 7
General Considerations previously necessary to the Explana-
tion of the Doctrine of Justification, 13
CHAPTER I.— Justifying Faith, the causes, object, and nature
of it declared, 83
CHAPTER II.— The Nature of Justifying Faith, - - 107
CHAPTER III.— The Use of Faith in Justification ; its especial
object further cleared, - - - - - - - 123
CHAPTER IV. — Of Justification, the Notion, and Signification
of the word in the Scripture, - 141
CHAPTER V. — The Distinction of a first and second Justifi-
cation examined. The Continuation of Justification, whereon
it depends, - -157
CHAPTER VI. — Evangelical Personal Righteousness, the'Nature
and Use of it. Final Judgment, and its respect to Justification, 174
• CHAPTER VII. — Imputation, and the Nature of it; with the
Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in particular, - 1&5
CHAPTER VIII.— Imputation of the Sins of the Church to Christ.
Grounds of it. The Nature of his Suretyship. Causes of the
New Covenant. Christ and the Church one Mystical Person.
Consequences thereof, 200
^
4 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IX.— The Formal Cause of Justification; or, the
Righteousness on account of which believers are justified before
God. Objections answered, 233
CHAPTER X. — Arguments for Justification by the imputation of
the Righteousness of Christ. The first Argument from the na-
ture and use of our own Personal Righteousness, - - 253
CHAPTER XI.— The Nature of the Obedience that God requires
of us. The Eternal Obligation of the Law thereto, - - 272
CHAPTER XII.— The Imputation of the Obedience of Christ
to the Law, declared and vindicated, ----- 284
CHAPTER XIII.— The Nature of Justification proved from the
difference of the Covenants, 310
CHAPTER XIV.— The Exclusion of all sorts of Works from an
interest in Justification. What intended by the Law, and the
works of it, in the Epistles of Paul, 313
CHAPTER XV.— Faith alone, 328
CHAPTER XVI.— The Truth pleaded, further confirmed by
Testimonies of Scripture, Jer. xxiii. 6, - - - - 332
CHAPTER XVII. — Testimonies out of the Evangelists, consid-
ered, --- -- 337
CHAPTER XVIII.— The Nature of Justification as declared in
the Epistles of Paul, especially that to the Romans, chap. iii. 345
CHAPTER XIX. — Objections against the Doctrine of Justifica-
tion, by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. Personal
holiness and obedience not obstructed, but furthered by it, 418
CHAPTER XX. — The Doctrine of the Apostle James, concern-
ing Faith and Works. Its agreement with that of Paul, - 432
ADVERTISE MENT
TO THE FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.
In this edition of Dr. Owen's important and profound work on
Justification, the punctuation, by which the meaning was, in
many instances, obscured, if not destroyed, has been corrected
throughout; some redundant expressions have been lopped
off; some obsolete words have been changed into more intelli-
gible ones; the Latin and Greek quotations have been re-
moved from the text to the bottom of the page; and those
which the author had left untranslated, have been translated.
In most instances, the Hebrew, in quotations from the Old Tes-
tament, has been omitted, as not required by those who can
consult the original, and useless to those who cannot. On the
whole, it is believed that the present will not suffer in com-
parison with any former edition of this valuable work.
PREFACE.
I SHALL not need to detain the reader with an account of the
nature and moment of that doctrine which is the entire subject
of the ensuing discourse. For, although sundry persons, even
among ourselves, have various apprehensions concerning it, yet
that the knowledge of the truth therein is of the highest impor-
tance to the souls of men, is on all hands agreed to. Nor indeed
is it possible that any man who knows himself to be a sinner,
and therefore obnoxious thereon to the judgment of God, should
not desire to have some knowledge of it, as that alone whereby
the way of delivery from the evil state and condition wherein
he finds himself is revealed. There are, I confess, multitudes
in the world, who although they cannot avoid some general
convictions of sin, as also of the consequences of it; yet do
fortify their minds against a practical admission of such con-
clusions, as in a just consideration of things do necessarily and
unavoidably ensue thereon. Such persons wilfully deluding
themselves with vain hopes and imaginations, do never once
seriously inquire by what way or means they may obtain peace
with God and acceptance before him, which, in comparison of
the present enjoryment of the pleasures of sin, they value not
at all. And it is in vain to recommend the doctrine of justifi-
cation to them, who neither desire nor endeavour to be justi-
fied. But where any persons are really made sensible of their
apostasy from God, of the evil of their natures and lives, with
the dreadful consequences that attend thereon in the wrath of
God, and eternal punishment due to sin, they cannot well judge
themselves more concerned in any thing, than in the know-
ledge of that divine way whereby they may be delivered from
this condition. And the minds of such persons stand in no
need of arguments to satisfy them in the importance of this
doctrine ; their own concernment in it, is sufficient to that pur-
PREFACE,
pose. And I shall assure them, that in the handling of it from
first to last, I have had no other design, but only to inquire
diligently into the divine revelation of that way, and those
means, with the causes of them, whereby the conscience of a
distressed sinner may attain assured peace with God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ. I lay more weight on the steady direc-
tion of one soul in this inquiry, than in disappointing the objec-
tions of twenty wrangling or fiery disputers. The question
therefore to this purpose being stated, as the reader will find in
the beginning of our discourse, although it were necessary to
spend some time in the explication of the doctrine itself, and
the terms wherein it is usually taught, yet the main weight of
the whole lies in the interpretation of Scripture testimonies,,
with the application of them to the experience of them who
believe, and the state of them who seek after salvation by Jesus
Christ. There are therefore some few things that I would de-
sire the reader to take notice of, that he may receive benefit
by the ensuing discourse; at least, if it be not his own fault, be
freed from prejudices against it, or a vain opposition to it.
1. Although there are at present various contests about the
doctrine of justification, and many books published in the way
of controversy about it; yet this discourse was written with no
design to contend with, or contradict any of what sort or opin-
ion soever. Some few passages which seem of that tendency,
are indeed occasionally inserted. But they are such as every
candid reader will judge to have been necessary. I have
ascribed no opinion to any particular person, much less wrested
the words of any, reflected on their persons, censured their
abilities, taken advantages of presumed prejudices against them,
represented their opinions in the deformed reflections of strain-
ed consequences, fancied intended notions wl^h their words
do not express, nor, candidly interpreted, give *iy countenance
to, or endeavoured the vain pleasure of seeming success, in op-
position to them, which with the like eff'ects of weakness of
mind and disorder of aff"ections, are the animating principles of
many late controversial writings. To declare and vindicate
the truth to the instruction and edification of such as love it in
sincerity, to extricate their minds from those difiiculties in this
particular instance, which some endeavour to cast on all gospel
mysteries, to direct the consciences of them that inquire after
abiding peace with God, and to establish the minds of them
that do believe, are the things I have aimed at. And an en-
deavour to this end, considering all circumstances, that station
PREFACE. 9
which God has been pleased graciously to give me in the
church, has made necessary to me.
2. I have written nothing but what I believe to be true, and
^ useful to the promotion of gospel obedience. The reader may
not here expect an extraction of other men's notions, or a col-
lection and improvement of their arguments, either by artificial
reasonings, or ornament of style and language, but a naked
inquiry into the nature of the things treated on, as revealed in
the Scripture, and as evidencing themselves in their power and
efficacy on the minds of them that do believe. It is the prac-
tical direction of the consciences of men in their application to
God by Jesus Christ, for deliverance from the curse due to the
apostate state, and peace with him, with the influence of the
way thereof upon universal gospel obedience, that is alone to
be designed in the handling of this doctrine. And therefore to
him that would treat of it in a due manner, it is required that
he weigh every thing he asserts in his own mind and expe-
rience, and not dare to propose that to others which he does
not abide by himself, in the most intimate recesses of his mind,
under his nearest approaches to God, in his surprisals with
dangers, in deep afflictions, in his preparations for death, and
most humble contemplations of the infinite distance between
God and him.
Other notions and disputations about the doctrine of justifi-
cation not seasoned with these ingredients, however seasoned
to the palate of some by skill and language, are insipid and
useless, immediately degenerating into an unprofitable strife of
words.
3. I know that the doctrine here pleaded for, is charged by
many with an unfriendly aspect towards the necessity of per-
sonal holiness, good works, and all gospel obedience in general,
yea utterly to take it away. So it was at the first clear reve-
lation of it by the Apostle Paul, as he frequently declares. But
it is sufficiently evinced by him to be the chief principle of, and
motive to all that obedience which is accepted with God
through Jesus Christ, as we shall manifest afterwards. How-
ever it is acknowledged that the objective grace of the gospel
in the doctrine of it, is liable to abuse, where there is nothing
of the subjective grace of it in the hearts of men; and the ways
of its influence upon the life of God, are uncouth to the reason-
ings of carnal minds. So was it charged by the Papists at the
first reformation, and continues yet so to be. Yet as it gave the
first occasion to the Reformation itself, so was it that whereby
10 PREFACE.
the souls of men being set at liberty from their bondage to in-
numerable superstitious fears and observances, utterly incon-
sistent with true gospel obedience, and directed into the ways
of peace with God through Jesus Christ, were made fruitful in
real holiness, and to abound in all those blessed effects of the
life of God, which were never found among their adversaries.
The same charge was afterwards renewed by the Socinians,
and continues still to be managed by them. But I suppose wise
and impartial men will not lay much weight on their accusa-
tions, until they have manifested the efficacy of their contrary
persuasion by better effects and fruits than yet they have done.
What sort of men they were who first coined that system of
religion which they adhere to, one who knew them well enough,
and sufficiently inclined to their anti-trinitarian opinions, de-
clares in one of the queries that he proposed to Socinus him-
self and his followers. If this, says he, be the truth which you
contend for, whence comes it to pass that it is declared only by
persons, nulla pietatis conimendatione, nullo laudato pri-
oris vitsR exemplo commendatos: imo ut plerunique videmus,
per vagabundos, ei contentionum zeli carnalis j)hnos ho-
mines, alios ex castris, aiilis, ganeis prolatam esse. (S'cru-
puli ah excellenti viro propositi, inter oper. Socin.) The
fiercest charge of such men against any doctrines they oppose
as inconsistent with the necessary motives to godliness, are a
recommendation of it to the minds of considerative men. And
there cannot be a more effectual engine plied for the ruin of
religion, than for men to declaim against the doctrine of justi-
fication by faith alone, and other truths concerning the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, as those which overthrow the necessity
of moral duties, good works, and gospel obedience, whilst un-
der the conduct of the opinions which they embrace in oppo-
sition to them, they give not the least evidence of the power of
truth, or grace of the gospel upon their own hearts, or in their
lives. Whereas therefore the whole gospel is the truth which
is after godliness, declaring and exhibiting that grace of God
which teaches us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts,
and that we should live soberly and righteously and godly in
this world; we being fallen into those times wherein under
great and fierce contests about notions, opinions, and practices
in religion, there is an horrible decay in true gospel purity and
holiness of life amongst the generality of men, I shall readily
grant, that keeping a due regard to the only standard of truth,
a, secondary trial of doctrines proposed and contended for, may
PREFACE. 11
and ought to be made by the ways, Uves, walkings and con-
versations of them by whom they are received and professed.
And ahhough it is acknowledged that the doctrine pleaded in
the ensuing discourse be liable to be abused, yea turned into
licentiousness by men of corrupt minds through theprevalency
of vicious habits in them (as is the whole doctrine of the grace
of God by Jesus Christ) and although the v/ay and means of
its efficacy and influence upon universal obedience to God in
righteousness and true holiness, be not discernible without
some beam of spiritual light, nor will give an experience of their
power to the minds of men utterly destitute of a principle of
spiritual life; yet if it cannot preserve its station in the church
by this rule, of its useful tendency to the promotion of godli-
ness, and its necessity thereto, in all them by whom it is really
believed and received in its proper light and power, and that
in the experience of former and present times, I shall be con-
tent that it be exploded.
4. Finding that not a few have esteemed it compliant with
their interest, to pubhsh exceptions against some few leaves.,
which in the handling of a subject of another nature I oc-
casionally wrote many years ago on this subject, I am not
without apprehensions, that either the same persons or others
of a like temper and principles may attempt an opposition to
what is here expressly tendered thereon. On supposition of
such an attempt, I shall in one word let the authors of it know,
wherein alone I shall be concerned. For if they shall make
it their business to cavil at expressions, to wrest my words,
wiredraw inferences and conclusions from them not expressly
owned by me, to revile my person, to catch at advantages in
any occasional passages, or other unessential parts of the dis-
course, labouring for an appearance of success and reputation to
themselves thereby, without a due attendance to Christian mode-
ration, candour and ingenuousness, I shall take no more notice
of what they say or write, than I would do of the greatest im-
pertinencies that can be reported in this world. The same I
say concerning oppositions of the like nature to any other writ-
ings of mine; a work which as I hear, some are at present en-
gaged in. I have somewhat else to do than to cast away any
part of the small remainder of my life in that kind of contro-
versial writings which good men bewail, and wise men deride.
Whereas therefore, the principal design of this discourse, is to
state the doctrine of justification from the Scripture, and to
confirm it by the testimonies thereof, I shall not esteem it
12 PREFACE.
spoken against, unless our exposition of Scripture testimonies,
and the application of them to the present argument be dis-
proved by just rules of interpretation, and another sense of
them be evinced. All other things which I conceive necessary
to be spoken to, in order to the right understanding and due
improvement of the truth pleaded for, are comprised and de-
clared in the ensuing general discourses to that purpose; these
few things I thought meet to mind the reader of.
J. 0.
From my Study,
May the 30th, 1677.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
PREVIOUSLY NECESSARY TO THE EXPLANATION
DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
That we may treat of the doctrine of justification usefully to
its proper ends, which are the glory of God in Christ, with the
peace and furtherance of the obedience of believers, some things
are previously to be considered, which we must have respect
to in the whole process of our discourse. And among others
that might be insisted on to the same purpose, these that ensue
are not to be omitted.
1. The first inquiry in this matter in a way of duty, is after
the proper relief of the conscience of a sinner, pressed and
perplexed with a sense of the guilt of sin. For justification
is the way and means whereby such a person obtains ac-
ceptance before God, with a right and title to a heavenly
inheritan'ce. And nothing is pleadable in this cause, but what
a man would speak to his own conscience in that state, or
to the conscience of another, when he is anxious under that
inquiry. Wherefore, the person under consideration, that is,
who is to be justified, is one who in himself is asij3?;?, Rom. iv.
5, "Ungodly;" and thereon vTtoSixo? •fco ©^w; chap.' iii. 19,
"guilty before God;" that is, obnoxious, subject, liable -rcj
Stxaiw^uttT'ti'oDQfOD, chap. i. 32; to the righteous sentential "judg-
ment of God," that he who commifteth sin, who is any way
guilty of it, is worthy of death. Hereupon such a person
finds himself Itto xanae.a.v, Gal. iii. 10; " under the curse,"
and " the wrath of God" therein "abiding on him," John iii.
18, 36. In this condition he is «rartoxoyi?T'oj; without plea;
2
14 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
"without excuse," by any thing in and from himself, for his
own relief; his "mouth is stopped," Rom. iii. 19. For he is,
in the judgment of God, declared in the Scripture avyx%r,9sii i^'
afia^iiav; Gal. iii. 22, every way "shut up under sin" and
all the consequences of it. Many evils in this condition are
men subject to, which may be reduced to those two of our
first parents, wherein they were represented. For first, they
thought foolishly to hide themselves from God, and then more
foolishly, would have charged him as the cause of their sin.
And such naturally are the thoughts of men under their con-
victions. But, whoever is the subject of the justification in-
quired after, is by various means brought into his apprehen-
sions, who cried, " SirsL^what m];ist I do to be saved?"
2. With respect to this state and condition of men, or men
in this state and condition, the inquiry is: What that is, upon
the account whereof God pardons all their sins, receives them
into his favour, declares or pronounces them righteous, and
acquitted from all guilt, removes the curse, and turns away
all his wrath from them, giving them right and title to a
blessed immortahty, or life eternal. This is that alone wh.ere--
in the consciences of sinne)-s in this estate are concerned. Nor
do they inquire after any thing, but what they may have to
oppose to, or answer the justice of God in the commands
and curse of the law, and what they may betake themselves
to, for the obtaining of acceptance with him to life and sal-
vation.
That the Apostle does thus and no otherwise state this whole
matter, and in answer to this inquiry, declare the nature of
justification and all the causes of it, in the third and fourth
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and elsewhere, shall be
aft^wards declared and proved. And we shall also manifest
that the Apostle James, in the second chapter of his Epistle,
does not speak to this inquiry, nor give an answer to it;
but it is of justification in another sense, and to another pur-
pose whereof he treats. And whereas we cannot either
safely or usefully treat of this doctrine, but with respect to
the same ends for which it is declared, and whereunto it is ap-
plied in the Scripture; we should not by any pretences be
turned aside from attending to this case and its resolution, in
all our discourses on this subject. For it is the direction, satis-
faction and peace of the consciences of men, and not the curi-
osity of notions or subtilty of disputations, which it is our duty
to design. And therefore I shall, as much as possibly I may,
THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION. 15
avoid all those philosophical terms and distinctions, wherewith
this evangelical doctrine has been perplexed, rather than
illustrated. For more weight is to be put on the steady gui-
dance of the mind and conscience of one believer, really exer-
cised about the foundation of his peace and acceptance with
God, than on the confutation often wrangling disputers.
3. Now the inquiry on what account or for what cause and
reason a man maybe so acquitted or discharged of sin, and ac-
cepted with God as before declared, doth necessarily issue in
this: Whether it be any thing in ourselves, as our faith and re-
pentance, the renovation of our natures, inherent habits of
^race, and actual works of righteousness, which we have done,
or may do; or whether it be the obedience, righteousness, sq.tis-
faction, and merit of the Son of GodTbur mediator and surety
of the covenant" imputed to us. One of these it must be,
namely, something that is our own, which, whatever may be
the influence of the grace of God in it, or causality of it, be-
cause wrought in and by us, is inherently our own in a proper
sense; or something, which being not our own, not inherent in
us, not wrought by us, is yet imputed unto us, for the pardon
of our sins, and the acceptation of our persons as righteous; or
the making of us righteous in the sight of God. Neither are
these things: capable of mixture or composition, Rom. xi. 6.
Which of these it is the duty, wisdom and safety of a convinced
sinner to rely upon and trust to in his appearance before God,
is the sum of our present inquiry.
4. The way whereby sinners do, or ought to betake them-
selves to this relief, on supposition that it is the righteous-
ness of Christ, and how they come to be partakers of, or inte-
rested in that which is not inherently their own, to as good
benefit and as much advantage, as if it were their own, is of a
distinct consideration. And as this also is clearly determined
in the Scripture, so it is acknowledged in the experience of all
them that do truly believe. Neither are we in this matter
much to regard the senses or arguings of men, who were never
thoroughly convinced of sin, nor have ever in their own per-
sons " fled for refuge unto the hope set before them."
5. These things I say are always to be attended to, in our
whole disquisition into the nature of evangelical justification;
for without a constant respect to them, we shall quickly wan-
der into curious and perplexed questions, wherein the con-
sciences of guilty sinners are not concerned; and which there-
fore really belong not to the substance or truth of this doc-
]
16 THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION.
trine, nor are to be mixed therewith. It is alone the relief
of those who are in themselves vTtoSoxoi ta eia, guilty before,
f or obnoxious and liable to the judgment of God, that we in-
quire after. That this is not any thing in or of themselves, nor
J can so be; that it is a provision without them, made in infinite
wisdom and grace by the mediation of Christ, his obedience
and death therein, is secured in the Scripture, against all con-
tradiction; audit is the fundamental principle of the gospel,
Matt. xi. 28.
6. It is confessed, that many things for the declaration of the
truth, and the order of the dispensation of God's grace herein,
are necessarily to be insisted on; such are the i4.ature of jjiatia
fying faijth, the place and use of it in justification, tlie causes
of the new covenant, the true notion of the mediation aiict sure-
tiship of Christ, and the^hke, which shall all of them be in-
quired into. But beyond what tends directly to the guidance
of the minds, and satisfaction of the souls of men, who seek
after a stable and abiding foundation of acceptance with God,
we are not easily to be drawn, unless we are free to lose the
benefit and comfort of this most important evangelical truth,
in needless and unprofitable contentions. And amongst many
other miscarriages which men are subject to, whilst they are
conversant about these things, this, in an especial manner, is to
be avoided.
7. For the doctrine of justification is directive of Christian
practice, and in no other evangelical truth is the whole of our
obedience more concerned; for the foundation, reasons, and
motives, of all our duty towards God, are contained therein.
Wherefore, in order to the due improvement of them, ought
it to be taught, and not otherwise. That which alone we aim
(or ought so to do') Jo learn in it and by it, is how we may
get and maintain peace with God, and so live unto him^ rs to
be accepted willPhim in what we do. To satisfy the nnnds
and consciences of men in these things, is this doctrine to be
taught. Wherefore, to carry it out of the understandings of
ordinary Christians, by speculative notions and distinctions, is
disserviceable to the faith of the Church. Yea, the mixing
of evangelical revelations with philosophical notions, has been,
in sundry ages, the poison of religion. Pretence of accu-
racy and artificial skill in teaching, is that which gives coun-
tenance to such a way of handling sacred things. But the
spiritual amplitude of Divine truths is restrained hereby, whilst
low, mean philosophical senses are imposed on them. And
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 17
not only so, but endless divisions and contentions are occa-
sioned and perpetuated. Hence, when any difference in reli-
gion is, in the pursuit of controversies about it, brought into
the field of metaphysical respects and philosophical terms,
whereof there is rtoxvi vofx.oi tv^a xat tj^^a, suflicient provision for
the supply of the combatants on both sides, the truth for the
most part, as to any concernment of the souls of men therein,
is utterly lost, and buried in the rubbish of senseless and un-
profitable words. And thus, in particular, those who seem to
be well enough agreed in the whole doctrine of justification,
so far as the Scripture goes before them, and the experience
of believers keeps them company, when once ihey engage in
their philosophical definitions and distinctions, are at such an
irreconcilable variance among themselves, as if they were
agreed on no one thing that doth concern it. For as men have
various apprehensions in coining such definitions as may be
defensible against objections, which most men aim at therein;
so, no proposition can be so plain, (at least in materia proha-
bili,) but that a man ordinarily versed in paedagogical terms
and metaphysical notions, may multiply distinctions on every
word of it.
8. Hence there has been a pretence and appearance of
twenty several opinions among Protestants, about justification;
as Bellarmine and Vasquez and others of the Papists charge
it against ihem, out of Osiander, when the faith of them all
was one and the same, Bellar. lib. 5. cap. 1. Vasq. in 1. 2.
Quaest. 113. disp. 202, whereof we shall speak elsewhere.
When men are once advanced into that field of disputation,
which is all overgrown with thorns of subtilties, perplexed no-
tions, and futile terms of art, they consider principally how
they may entangle others in it; scarce at all, how they may get
out of it themselves, ^nd in this posture they oftentimes
utterly forget the business which thev nrp nhnnt. especially in
fjTis matter of justification; namely, how a guilty sinner may
come* to obtain favour and acceptance with God. And no t
only so, but I doubt they oftentimes dispute themselves beyond
what they can well abide by, when they return home to a
sedate meditation of the state of things between God and their
own souls. And I cannot much value their notions and senti-
ments of this matter, who object and answer themselves out of
a sense of their own appearance before God, much less of theirs,
who evidence an open inconformity to the grace and truth of
this doctrine, in their hearts and lives.
18 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
9. Wherefore, we do but trouble the faith of Christians, and
the peace of the true Church of God, whilst we dispute about
expressions, terms and notions, when the substance of the doc-
trine intended, may be declared and believed, without the
knowledge, understanding, or use of any of them. Such are
all those in whose subtle management, the captious art of
wrangling does principally consist. A diligent attendance to
the revelation, made hereof in the Scripture, and an ex-
amination of our own experience thereby, is the sum of what
is required of us for the. right understanding of the truth herein.
And every true believer whois taught of God, knows how to put
his whole trust in Christ alone, and the grace of God by him,
for mercy, righteousness and glory, and not at all concern him-
self with those loads of thorns and briars, which, under the
names of definitions, distinctions, accurate notions, in a number
of exotic, pasdagogical and philosopical terms, some pretend to
accommodate them withal,
10. The Holy Ghost in expressing the most eminent acts in
our justification, especially as to our believing, or the acting
of that faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use
of many metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now,
in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude,
undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? He
that shall deny, that there is more spiritual sense and experience
conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of believers,
(which is the life and soul of teaching things practical,) than
in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really
ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of
such expressions belongs, and is confined to natural science;
but spiritual truths are to be taught, not "in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,
comparing spiritual things with spiritual." God is wiser than
man, and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most ex-
pedient ways for the illumination of our minds, with that
knowledge of evangelical truths, which it is our duty to* have
and attain, than the wisest of us all. And other knowledge of,
or skill in these things, than what is required of us in a way of
duty, is not to be valued.
It is therefore to no purpose to handle the mysteries of the
Gospel, as if Holcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with
all the Sententiarists, Summists, and Quodlibetarians of the old
Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their
graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use to
THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION. 19
US, in this doctrine of justification. For wliereas they pertina-
ciously adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew
nothing of any righteousness, hut what is an habit inherent in
ourselves, and the acts of it, they wrested the whole doctrine
of justification unto a compliance therewithal,*
Secondly — A due consideration of him with whom in this
matter we have to do, and that immediately, is necessary to
a right stating of our thoughts about it. The Scripture ex-
presses it emphatically, that, "^ is God tlmt. jn.stifip.th.^' Rom.
viii. 33. And he assumes it to himself as his prerogative, to
do what belongs thereunto. " I, even I am he that blotteth out
thy transgressions for my own sake, and will not remember thy
sins," Isa. xliii. 25. And it is hard, in my apprehension, to
suggest to him any other reason, or consideration of the par-
don of our sins; seeing he has taken it on him to do it for
his own sake, that is, "for the Lord's sake," Dan. is;*' 17., in
whom " all the seed of Israel are justified," Isa. xlv. 23. In his
sight, before his tribunal, it is, that men are justified or con-
demned, Psal. cxliii. 2. "Enter not into judgmerit-'with thy
servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be'' justified."
And the whole work of justification, with all that belongs
thereto, is represented after the manner of a juridical pro-
ceeding before God's tribunal, as we shall see afterwards.
Therefore, saith the Apostle, "by the deeds of the law shall
no flesh be justified in his sight," Rom. iii. 20. However any
may be justified in the sight of men or angels, by their own
obedience, or deeds of the law, yet in his sight, none can be so.
Necessary it is to any man who is to come to a trial, in the
sentence whereof he is greatly concerned, duly to consider the
judge before whom he is to appear, and by whom his cause is
finally to be determined. And if we manage our disputes about
justification, without a contitmal. regard to him, by whom we
must be cast or acquitted, we shall not rightly apprehend
what our plea ought to be. Wherefore, the greatness, the ma-
jesty, the holiness and sovereign authority of God, are always
to be present with us, in a due sense of them, when we in-
quire how we may be justified before him. Yet, it is hard to
"discern how the minds of some men are influenced by the con-
* So Plghius himself complained of them, Controv. 2, Dissimulare lion pos-
sumus, lianc vcl primam doctrinae Christianae partem (de justificatione) obscura-
tam magis qiiain illustratam a scliolastici?, spinosis picrisquc quccstionibus, et de-
finitionibus, secundum quas nonuulli magno supercilio primam in omnibus autori-
tatem arrogantcs, &c.
20 THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION.
sideration of these things, in their fierce contests for the inte-
rest of their own works in their justification. But the Scrip-
ture represents to us, what thonglits of him, and of them-
selves, not only sinners, but saints also have had, and cannot
but have, upon near discoveries and effectual conceptions of
God and his greatness. Thoughts hereof ensuing on a sense
of the guilt of sin, filled our first parents with fear and shame,
and put them on that foolish attempt of hiding themselves from
him. Nor is the wisdom of th^r posterity one jot better under
their convictions, without a discovery of the promise. That
alone makes sinners wise, which tenders them relief. At pre-
sent, the generality of men are secure, and do not much ques-
tion but that they shall come ofi" well enough one way or other,
in the trial they are to undergo. And as such persons are alto-
gether indifferent what doctrine concerning justification is
taught and received, so for the most part, for themselves, they
incline to that declaration of it, which best suits their own
reason, as influenced with self-conceit, and corrupt affections.
The sum hereof is, that what they cannot do themselves, what
is wanting that they may be saved, be it more or less, shall one
way or other be made up by Christ, either the use or the abuse
of which persuasion is the greatest fountain of sin in the world,
next to the depravity of our nature. And whatever be, or
may be pretended to the contrary, persons not convinced of
sin, not humbled for it, are, in all their ratiocinations about
spiritual things, under the conduct of principles so vitiated and
corrupted. See Matt, xviii. 3, 4. But when God is pleased by
any means to manifest his glory to sinners, all their former
trusts and contrivances issue in dreadful horror and distress.
An account of their temper is given us, Isa. xxxiii. 14. "The
sinners in Sion are afraid, fearfulness hath surprised the hy-
pocrites: who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" Nor
is it thus only with some peculiar sort of sinners. The same
will be the thoughts of all guilty persons, at some time or
other. For those who through sensuality, security, or super-
stition, do hide themselves from the vexation of them in this
world, will not fail to meet with them when their terror shall
be increased, and become remediless. "Our God is a con-
suming fire," and men will one day find,. how vain it is to set
their briars and thorns against him in battle array. And we
may see what extravagant contrivances convinced sinners will
put themselves upon, under any real view of the majesty and
THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION. 21
holiness of God: Micah, vi. 6, 7. " Wherewith (saith one of
them) shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the
high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with
calves of a year old? will the Lord be pleased with thousands
of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my
first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin
of my soul?" Neither shall I ever think them meet to be con-
tended withal about the doctrine of justification, who take no
notice of these things, but rather despise them.
This is the proper effect of the conviction of sin, strengthened
and sharpened with the consideration of the terror of the
Lord, who is to judge concerning it. And this is that, which
in the Papacy meeting with an ignorance of the righteousness
of God, has produced innumerable superstitious inventions, for
the appeasing of the consciences of men, who by any means
fall under the disquietments of such convictions. For they
quickly see that nothing of the obedience which God requires
of them, as it is performed by them, will justify them before
this high and holy God. Wherefore they seek for shelter in
contrivances about things that he has not commanded, to try
if they can put a cheaf upon their consciences, and find relief
in diversions.
Nor is it thus only with profligate sinners upon their con-
victions, but the best of men, when they have had near and
efficacious representations of the greatness, holiness, and glory
of God, have been cast into the deepest self abasement, and
most serious renunciations of all trust or confidence in them-
selves. So the prophet Isaiah, upon his vision of the glory of
the Holy. One, cried out, "Woe is me, I am undone, because I
am a man of unclean lips;" chap. vi. 5, nor was he relieved but
by an evidence of the free pardon of sin, ver. 7. So holy
Job, in all his contests with his friends, who charged him with
hypocrisy, and. his being a sinner, guilty in a peculiar manner
above other men, with assured confidence and perseverance
therein, justified his sincerity, his faith' and trust in God,
against their whole charge and every parcel of it. And this
he does with such a full satisfaction of his own integrity, as
that not only he insists at large on his vindication, but fre-
quently appeals to God himself, as to the truth of his plea. For
he directly pursues that counsel which the apostle James
so long after gives to all believers; nor is the doctrine of that
apostle more eminently exemplified in any one instance through-
out the whole Scripture, than in him. For he shows his faith
22 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
by his works, and pleads his justification thereby. As Job
justified himseh', and was justified by his works, so we allow
it the duty of every believer to be. His plea for justifica-
tion by works, in the sense wherein it is so, was the most
noble that ever was in the world, nor was ever any contro-
versy managed upon a greater occasion.
At length this Job is called into the immediate presence of
God, to plead his own cause, not now as stated between him
and his friends, whether he were an hypocrite or no, or whether
his faith or trust in God was sincere: but as it was stated
between God and him, wherein he seemed to have made some
undue assumptions on his own behalf. The question was now
reduced to this: on what grounds he might or could be jus-
tified in the sight of God? To prepare his mind to a right
judgment in this case, God manifests his glory to him, and in-
structs him in the greatness of his majesty and power. And
this he does by a multiplication of instances, because under our
temptations, we are very slow in admitting right conceptions
of God. Here the holy man quickly acknowledged, that the
state of the case was utterly altered. AH his former pleas of
faith, hope, and trust in God, of sincerity in obedience, which
with so much earnestness he before insisted on, are now quite
laid aside. He saw well enough that they were not pleadable
at the tribunal before which he now appeared, so that God
should enter into judgment with him thereon, with respect to
his justification. Wherefore, in the deepest self-abasement
and abhorrence, he betakes himself unto sovereign grace and
mercy. For then "Job answered the Lord and said, Behold
I am vile, what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand
upon my mouth: once have I spoken, but I will not answer,
yea, twice, but I will proceed no further," Job xl. 3, 4, 5, And
again, " Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak, I will demand
of thee, and declare thou unto me: I have heard of thee by the
hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I_
abhor myself, aijd repent in dust and ashes," chap. xlii. 4, 5, 6.
Let any men place themselves in the condition wherein now
Job was, in the immediate presence of God; let them attend
to what he really speaks to them in his word, namely what
they will answer to the charge that he has against them,
and what will be their best plea before his tribunal, that they
may be justified. I do not believe that any man living has
more encouraging grounds to plead for an interest in his
own faith and obedience, in his justification before God, than
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 23
Job had; although I suppose he had not so much skill to man-
age a plea to that purpose with scholastic notions and distinc-
tions, as the Jesuits have. But, however we may be har-
nessed with subtile arguments and solutions, I fear it will not
be safe for ns to adventure further upon God, than he dared
to do.
There was of old, a direction for the visitation of the sick,
composed, as they say, by Anselm, and published by Casparus
Vlenbergius, which expresses a better sense of these things,
than some seem to be convinced of.* "Dost thou believe that
thou canst not be saved, but by the death of Christ? The sick
man answereth, yes; then let it be said unto him. Go to, then,
and whilst thy soul abideth in thee, put all thy confidence in
this death alone, place thy trust in no other thing, commit thy-
self wholly to this death, cover thyself wholly Vv?ith this alone,
cast thyself wholly on this death, wrap thyself wholly in this
death. And if God would judge thee, say. Lord, I place the
death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy judgment;
and otherwise I will not contend, or enter into judgment with
thee. And if he shall say unto thee, that thou art a sinner, say,
I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and
my sins. If he shall say unto thee, that thou hast deserved
damnation, say, Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ
between thee and all my sins; and I offer his merits for my
own, which 1 should have, and have not. If he say that he is
angry with thee, say. Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus
Christ between me and thy anger." Those who gave these
directions, seem to have been sensible of what it is to appear
before the tribunal of God; and how unsafe it will be for us
there to insist on any thing in ourselves. Hence are the words
of the same Anselm in his meditations.t " My conscience hath
• * Credisne to non posse salvari nisi per mortem Christi ? Rcspondct infirmus,
Etiam ; turn dicit illi ; Age ergo dum superesl in te aniina, in hac sola mortc fidu-
ciam tuam constitue ; in nulla alia re fiduciam habc, huic morli tc totum com-
niittc, hac sola te totum contegc, totum iminisce te in iiac moitc, in hac morte
totum te involve. Et si Dominus te volucrit judicare, Die, Domino, mortem Do-
mini nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me et tuum judicium ; alitor tecum non con-
tendo. Et si tibi dixerit quia pcccator es, die, mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi
pono inter mc et peccata. mea. Si dixcrit tibi quod meruisti damnalionem ; die,
Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi obtendo inter to ct mala merita mea,
ipsiusque merita offero pro merilo quod ego debuissem habere ncc liabco ; si dix-
erit quod tibi est iratus, die, Domine, mortem Domini Jesu Christi oppono inter
me et iram tuam.
t Conscicntia mea meruit damnationem, et penitentia mea non sufficitad satis-
factionem, sed cerium est quod misericordia tua superat omnem offensionem.
24 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
deserved damnation, and my repentance is not sufficient for
satisfaction, but most certain it is, that thy mercy aboundeth
above all offence." And this seems to me a better direction,
than those more lately given by some of the Roman church.
Such is the prayer suggested to a sick man, by Johan Polan-
dus, lib. Methodus in adjuvandis morientihus. " Lord Jesus,
join my obedience with all that thou hast done and suffered,
out of thy perfect charity and obedience. And with the riches
of the satisfactions and merits of this love, deign to offer it to
the Eternal Father."* Or that of a greater author, Antidot,
Animse, fol. 17. "0 rosy company of the martyrs, offer for me,
now and at the hour of my death, the merits of your faithful-
ness, constancy, and precious blood, together with the blood of
the immaculate lamb, shed for the salvation of all."t Hierom,
long before Anselm,!^spake to the same purpose.^ "When the
day of judgment, or of death, shall come, all hands will be
dissolved, (that is, faint or fall down,) unto which it is said in
another place, Be strengthened ye hands that hang down. But
all hands shall be melted down, (that is, all men's strength and
confidence shall fail them.) because no ^^orks shall be found
which can answer the righteousness of God; for no flesh shall
be justified in his sight. Whence the Prophet says, in the
Psalm, If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquity, who should
stand?" And Ambrose to the same purpose. § "Let no man
arrogate any thing unto himself — let no man glory in his own
merits or good deeds — let no man boast of his power — let us
all hope to find mercy by our Lord Jcsns, for we shall all stand
before his judgment seat. Of him will I beg pardon — of him
will I desire indulgence — what other hope is there for sin-
ners?"
* Domine Jesu, conjunge, obsccro, obsequium mcum cum omnibus quos tu
egisti, et passus cs ex tarn pcrfecta charitatc et obcdientia. Et cum divitiis satis-
tactionum et meritorum dilectionis, Patri lEterno ilkid ofl'crre digneris.
t Tu liinc O rosea Martyrum turba offer pro me, nunc ct in hora mortis meas,
merita fidelitatum, constantice et pretiosi sanguinis, cum sanguine agni immacu-
lati, pro omnium sahite ciFusi.
\ Cum dies judicii aut dormitionis advenerit, omnes manus dissolventur ; quibus
dicitur in alio loco, conibrtaniini manus dissolutaj ; dissolventur autcm manus quia
nullum opus dignum Dei justitiarcperiatur, etnon justificabitur in conspectu ejus
omnis vivens, unde Proplicta dicit in Fsalmo, si iniquitates attendas Domine, quis
sustinebit ? lib. 6. in Isa. in cap. xiii. v. 6, 7.
§ Nemo ergo sibi arroget, nemo de meritis glorietur, nemo de potestatc se jactet,
omnes speremus per Dominum Jesum misericordiam invcnire, quoniam omnes
ante tribunal ejus stabimus: de illo veniam, de illo indulgcnliam postulabo; qutenam
spes alia peccatoribus? in Psal. c.\ix. Rcsh.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 25
Wherefore, if men will be turned off from a continual regard
to the greatness, holiness, and majesty of God, by their in-
ventions in the heat of disputation, if they do forget a reve-
rential consideration of what will become them, and what they
may betake themselves to, when they stand before his tribu-
nal, they may engage in such apprehensions, as they dare not
abide by in their own personal trial; for, how shall man be
just with God? Hence it has been observed, that the school-
men themselves, in their meditations and devotional writings,
wherein they had immediate thoughts of God, with whom they
had to do. did speak quite another language, as to justification
before God, than they do in their wrangling philosophical fiery
disputes about it. And I had rather learn what some men
really judge about their own justification, from their prayers,
than their writings. Nor do I remember, that I did ever hear
any good man in his prayers, use any expressions about justi-
fication, pardon of sin, and righteousness before God, wherein
any plea from any thing in ourselves, was introduced or made
use of The prayer of Daniel hath, in this matter, been tjie
substance of their supplications. " 0 Lord! righteousness be-
longeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces; we do not
present our supplications before thee for our own righteous-
ness, but for thy great mercies. 0 Lord hear, 0 Lord forgive,
for thine own sake, 0 my God," Dan. ix, 7, IS, 19. Or that of
the Psalmist, ''Enter not into judgment with thy servant, 0
Lord: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified," Psal.
cxliii. 2. Or, " If thou. Lord, mark iniquity. Lord, who shall
stand? but there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be
feared," Psal. cxxx. 2, 3, 4. On which words, the exposition
of Austin is remarkable, speaking of David, and applying it
to himself " Lo, he cries out under the burden of his ini-
quities. He has examined himself, he has examined his life,
he sees it covered with scandalous crimes; wherever he looks
he finds no goodness in himself And when he sees on every
hand such numerous and aggravated sins, as if in terror he
exclaims, 'If thou. Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, who shall
stand?' For he sees that the whole life of man is beset with
sins, like barking dogs; that all consciences are accused by their
own thoughts, that a pure heart can not be found which can
lay hold of righteousness. This being the case, let the hearts
of all lay hold of the mercy of the Lord their God, and say to
him, 'If thou Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, 0 Lord who shall
stand?' But what is the ground of hope? ' For there is forgive-
3
26 THE DOCTRI^•E OF JUSTIFICATION.
ness with thee.' "* And whereas we may, and ought to repre-
sent unto God in our suppHcations, our faith, or what it is that
we believe herein; I much question, whether some men can
find in their hearts to pray over and plead before him, all the
arguments and distinctions they make use of, to prove the inte-
rest of our works and obedience, in our justification before him,
or enter into judgment with him, upon the conclusions which
they make from them. Nor will many be satisfied to make
use of that prayer which Pelagius taught the widow, as it was
objected to him in the Diaspolitan Synod. t "Thou knowest, 0
Lord, how holy, how innocent, how pure from all deceit and
rapine, are the hands which I stretch forth unto thee; how just,
how unspotted with evil, how free from lying are those lips
wherewith I pour forth prayers unto thee, that thou wouldst
have mercy on me." And yet, although he taught her so to
plead her own purity, innocency and righteousness before God,
yet he does it not, as those whereon she might be absolutely
justified, but only as the condition of her obtaining mercy. Nor
have I observed, that any public Liturgies (the Mass-Book
only excepted, wherein there is a frequent recourse to the
merits and intercession of saints,) do guide men in their pray-
ers before God, to plead any thing for their acceptance with
him, or as the means or condition thereof, but grace, mercy,
the righteousness and blood of Christ alone.
Wherefore, I cannot but judge it best, (others may think of
it as they please,) for those who would teach or learn the doc-
trine of justification in a due manner, to place their consciences
in the presence of God, and their persons before his tribunal,
and then, upon a due consideration of his greatness, power, ma-
jesty, righteousness, holiness, of the terror of his glory, and
sovereign authority, to inquire what the Scripture, and a sense
of their own condition, directs them to, as their relief and re-
* Ecce clamat sub molibus iniquitatum suarum. Circumspcxit se, circumspexit
vitam suam, vidit illam undique flagitiis ccopertam, quacunque rcspexit, nihil in
se boni invenit: Et cum tantaet tarn multa peccata undique viderit, tamquam ex-
pavescens, exclaniavit, si iniquitates obscrvaris Domine, quis sustinebit? vidit enim
prope totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis ; accusari omnes conscientias
cogitationibus suis, non inveniri Cor Castum praesumens de justitia, quod quia
inveniri non potest, prcBsumat ergo omnium Cor de misericordia Domini Dei sui,
et dicat Deo, si iniquitates observaris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit ? Quee au-
tem est spes ? quoniam apud te propitiatio est.
t Tu nosti Domine quam sanctse, quam innocentes, quam puree ab omni fraude
et rapina quas ad te expando manus; quam justa, quam immaculata labia et ab
omni mendacio libera, quibus tibi ut mihi miserearis preces fundo.
THE DOCTKINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 27
fuge, and what plea it becomes them to make for themselves.
Secret thoughts of God and ourselves — retired meditations — the
conduct of the spirit in humble supplications — death-bed pre-
parations for an immediate appearance before God — faith and
love in exercise on Christ, speak other things for the most part,
than many contend for.
3. A clear apprehension and due sense of the greatness of
our apostasy from God — of the depravation of our natures
thereby — of the power and guilt of sin — of the holiness and
severity of the law, are necessary to a right apprehension of
the doctrine of justification. Therefore, to the declaration of
it does the Apostle premise a large discourse, thoroughly to
convince the minds of all that seek to be justified, with a sense
of these things, Rom. i. 2, 3. The rules which he has given
us, the method which he prescribes, and the ends which he de-
signs, are those which we shall choose to follow. And he lays
it down in general, That the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith, and that the just shall live by faith, chap. i.
17. But he declares, not in particular, the causes, nature, and
way of our justification, until he hath fully evinced that all men
areshut upunder this state of sin, and manifested howdeplorable
their condition is thereby. And in the ignorance of these things,
in the denying or palliating of them, lies the foundation of all
misbelief about the grace of God. Pelagianism in its first root,
and all its present branches, is resolved thereinto. For, not ap-
prehending the dread of our original apostasy from God, nor
the consequence of it in the universal depravation of our nature,
they disown any necessity, either of the satisfaction of Christ,
or the efficacy of divine grace, for our recovery or restoration.
So, upon the matter, the principal ends of the mission, both of
the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit, are renounced; which
issues in the denial of the Deity of the one, and the personality
of the other. The fall which we had, being not great, and the
disease contracted thereby, being easily curable, and there be-
ing little or no evil in these things, which are now luiavoidable
to our nature, it is no great matter to be freed or justified from
all, by a mere act of favour on our own endeavours; nor is the
efficacious grace of God any way needful to our sanctification
and obedience, as these men suppose.
Where these or the like conceits are admitted, and the minds
of men by them kept off from a due apprehension of the state
and guilt of sin, and their consciences from being affected with
the terror of the Lord, and curse of the law thereon, justifica-
28 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
tion is a notion to be dealt withal, pleasantly or subtilly, as men
see occasion. And hence arise the differences about it, at pre-
sent, I mean those which are really such, and not merely the
different ways whereby learned men express their thoughts and
apprehensions concerning it.
By some, the imputation of the actual apostasy and trans-
gression of Adam, the head of our nature, whereby his sin be-
came the sin of the world, is utterly denied. Hereby both the
ground the Apostle proceeds on, in evincing the necessity of
our justification, or our being made righteous by the obedience
of another, and all the arguments brought in the confirmation of
the doctrine of it, in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Ro-
mans, are evaded and overthrown. Socinus de Servator. par.
4, cap. 6, confesses that place to give great countenance to the
doctrine of justification, by the imputation of the righteous-
ness of Christ. And therefore he sets himself to oppose with
sundry artifices, the imputation of the sin of Adam to his
natural posterity. For he perceived well enough, that upon
the admission thereof, the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ to his spiritual seed, would unavoidably follow, accord-
ing to the tenor of the Apostle's discourse.
Some deny the depravation and corruption of our nature,
which ensued on our apostasy from God, and the loss of his
image. Or if they do not absolutely deny it, yet they so ex-
tenuate it, as to render it a matter of no great concern to us.
Some disease and distemper of the soul they will acknowledge,
arising from the disorder of our aflections, whereby we are
apt to receive in such vicious habits and customs, as are in prac-
tice in the world. And as the guilt hereof is not much, so the
danger of it is not great. And as for any spiritual filth or stain
of our nature, that is in it, it is clear washed away from all, by
baptism. That deformity of soul which came upon us in the
loss of the image of God, wherein the beauty and harmony of
all our faculties, in all their actings in order to their utmost
end, did consist; that enmity unto God, even in the mind which
ensued thereon; that darkness which our understandings were
clouded, yea, blinded withal; the spiritual death which passed
on the whole soul, and total alienation from the life of God;
that impotency unto good; that inclination unto evil; that de-
ceitfulness of sin; that power and eflicacy of corrupt lusts,
which the Scripture and experience so fully charge on the state
of lost nature, are rejected as empty notions or fables. No
wonder if such persons look upon imputed righteousness as the
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 29
shadow of a dream, who esteem those things which evidence
its necessity, to be but fond imaginations. And small hope is
there to bring such men to value the righteousness of Christ, as
imputed to them, who are so unacqainted with their own un-
righteousness inherent in them. Until men know themselves
better, they will care very little to know Christ at all.
Against such as these the doctrine of justification may be
defended, as we are obliged to contend for the faith once de-
livered to the saints, and as the mouths of gainsayers are to
be stopped. But to endeavour their satisfaction in it, whilst
they are under the power of such apprehensions, is a vain at-
tempt. As our Saviour said to them to whom he had de-
clared the necessity of regeneration; " If I have told you earth-
ly things and you believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you
heavenly things?" so may we say, if men will not believe those
things, whereof it would be marvellous, but that the reason of
it is known, that they have not an undeniable evidence and ex-
perience in themselves, how can they believe those heavenly
mysteries which respect a supposition of that within themselves
which they will not acknowledge.
Hence some are so far from any concernment in a perfect
righteousness to be imputed to them, as that they boast of.a
perfection in themselves. So did the Pelagians of old, glory of
a sinless perfection m the sight of Ljoci, even^wlien they were
convinced of sinful miscarriages in the sight of men, as they
are charged by Jerome, lib. 2. Dialog, and by Austin, lib. 2,
contra Julian, cap. S, Such persons are not fit subjects for
hearing the gospel. Men who have no sense in their own
hearts and consciences of the spiritual disorder of their souls, of
the secret continual actings of sin, with deceit and violence ob-
structing all that is good, promoting all that is evil, defiling all
that is done by them through the lusting of the flesh against the
spirit, as contrary to it, though no outward perpetration of
sin nor actual omission of duty do ensue thereon; who are not
engaged in a constant watchful conflict against the first mo-
tions of sin, to whom they are not the greatest burden and
sorrow in this life, causing them to cry out for deliverance from
them; who can despise those who make acknowledgments in
their confession to God, of their sense of these things, with
the guilt v/herewith they are accompanied, will with an assured
confidence reject and contemn what is offered about justifica-
tion through the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed
to us. For no man will be so fond as to be solicitous of a
3*
30
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
righteousness that is not his own, who has at home in a readi-
ness that which is his own, which will serve his turn. It is
tlierefore the ignorance of these things alone, that can delude
men into an apprehension of their justification before God by
their own personal righteousness. For if they were acquaint-
ed with them, they would quickly discern such an imperfection
in the best of their duties, such a frequency of sinful irregulari-
ties in their minds, and disorders in their affections, such an un-
suitableness in all that they are and do, from the inward frames
of their hearts to all their outward actions, to the great-
ness and holiness of God, as would abate their confidence in
placing any trust in their own righteousness for their justifi-
cation.
By means of these and the like presumptuous conceptions of
unenlightened minds, the consciences of men are kept ofi'from
being affected with a due sense of sin, and a serious considera-
tion how they may obtain acceptance before God. Neither the
consideration of the holiness or terror of the Lord; nor the
severity of the law as it indispensably requires a righteous-
ness in compliance with its commands; nor the promise of the
gospel declaring and tendering a righteousness, the righteous-
ness of God in answer thereunto; nor the uncertainty of their
own minds upon trials and surprisals, as having no stable
ground of peace to anchor on; nor the consta,nt secret disquiet-
ment of their consciences, if not seared or hardened through
the deceitfulness of sin; can prevail with them whose thoughts
are prepossessed with such slight conceptions of the state and
guilt of sin, to fly for refuge to the only hope that is set be-
fore them, or really and distinctly to comport with the only
way of deliverance and salvation.
Wherefore if we would either teach or learn the doctrine of
justification in a due manner, a clear apprehension of the great-
ness of our apostasy from God, a due sense of the guilt of
sin, a deep experience of its power, all with respect to
the holiness and law of God, are necessary to us. We
have nothing to do in this matter with men who through the
fever of pride have lost the understanding of their own miser-
able condition. For as Austin remarks, "Nature is so evi-
dently depraved, that not to see it, is a proof of the greatest
depravity."* The whole need not the physician but the sick.
Those who are pricked to the heart for sin, and cry out what
* Natura sic apparet vitiata ut hoc majoris vitii sit non videre.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION, 3 1
shall we do to be saved, will understand what we have to say.
Against others we must defend the truth as God shall enable.
And it may be made good by all sorts of instances, that as men
rise in their notions about the extenuation of sin, so they fall in
their regard to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it
is no less true also on the other hand, as unbelief works in
men a disesteem of the person and righteousness of Christ, they
are cast inevitably to seek for countenance to their own
consciences, in the extenuation of sin. So insensibly are the
minds of men diverted from Christ and seduced to place their
confidence in themselves. Some confused respect they have
to him, as a relief they know not how nor wherein; but
they live in that pretended height of human wisdom, to trust
to themselves. So they are instructed to do by the best of the
philosophers, " There is but one good, which is the cause and
support of a happy life; that is to trust in yourself,"* Hence
also is the internal sanctifying grace of God among many
equally despised with the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ. The sum of their faith, and of their arguments in the
confirmation of it, is given by the learned Roman orator and
philosopher. *'No man ever thanks God for virtue; and
rightly too. For our virtue is a just ground of praise and
glorying, which would not be the case if we had it as a gift
from God, and not from ourselves,"!
4, The opposition that the Scripture makes between grace
and works in general, with the exclusion of the one and the
assertion of the other in our justification, deserves a previous
consideration. The opposition intended is not made between
grace and works or our own obedience, as to their essence,
nature and consistency in the order and method of our salva-
tion, but only with respect to our justification. I do not de-
sign herein to plead any particular testimonies of Scripture,
as to their especial sense or declaration of the mind of the
Holy Ghost in them, which will afterwards be with some dili-
gence inquired into; but only to take a view which way the
eye of the Scripture guides our apprehensions, and what
compliance there is in our ov/n experience with that guidance.
, The principal seat of this doctrine, as will be confessed by
* Unum bonum est, quod beatte vitfB causa et firmainentum est, tibi fidere.
Senec. Epist.31,
t Virtutem nemo unquam Deo acceptam retulit; nimirum rectc. Propter vir-
tutem enim jure laudamur, et in virtute recte gloriaraur, quod non contingeret, si
donum a Deo, non a nobis haberemus. Tull, de nat. Door.
32
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
all, is in the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Galatians,
whereto that also to the Hebrews may be added. But in
that to the Romans it is most eminently declared. For there-
in is it handled by the Apostle ex professo at large, and that
both doctrinally, and in the way of controversy with them
by whom the truth was opposed. And it is worth our con-
sideration what process lie makes towards the declaration of
it, and what principles he proceeds upon therein.
1. He lays it down as the fundamental maxim which he
would proceed upon, or as a general thesis including the sub-
stance of what he designed to explain and prove, that, in tlie
gospel "the righteousness of God is revealed from iaith to faith,
as it is written, the just shall live by faith,'' chap. i. 17. All sorts
of men who had any knowledge of God and themselves were
then, as they must be always, inquiring, and in one degree or
other labouring after righteousness. For this they looked on,
and that justly, as the only means of an advantageous relation
between God and themselves. Neither had the generality of
men any other thoughts, but that this righteousness must be
their own, inherent in them, and performed by them, as Rom.
X. 3. For as this is tlie language of a natural conscience, and
of the law, and suited to all philosophical notions concerning
the nature of righteousness; so whatever testimony was given
of another kind in the law and the prophets, (as such a testi-
mony is given to a righteousness of God without the lav/,
chap, iii 21,) there was a veil upon it as to the understanding
of all sorts of men. As therefore righteousness is that which
all men seek after, and cannot but seek after who design or
desire acceptance with God, so it is in vain to inquire of the
law, of a natural conscience, of philosophical reason, after any
righteousness but what consists in inherent habits and acts of
our own. Neither law, nor natural conscience, nor reason, do
know any other. But in opposition to this righteousness of
our own, and the necessity thereof, testified to by the law,
in its primitive constitution, by the natural light of conscience,
and the apprehension of the nature of things by reason, the
apostle declares that in the gospel there is revealed another
righteousness which is also the righteousness of another, the
righteousness of God, and that from faith to faith. For not
only is the righteousness itself revealed foreign froratliose other
principles, but also the manner of our participation of it, or its
communication to us from faith to faith, (tlie faith of God in
the revelation, and our faith in the acceptation of it, being only
THE DOCTRINE OF jrSTIFICATION.
33
here concerned) is an eminent revelation. Righteousness of
all things should rather seem to be frojiijs^i'ks to works,
from the work of grace in us, to the works of obedience done
by us, as the papists affirm. No, says the apostle, it is from
faith to faith, whereof afterwards.
This is the general thesis the Apostle proposes for confirm-
ation, and he seems therein to exclude from justification every
thing but the righteousness of God and the faith of believers.
And to this purpose he considers all persons that did or might
pretend to righteousness or seek after it, and all ways and
means whereby they hoped to attain to it, or whereby it
might most probably be obtained, declaring the failing of
all persons, and the insufficiency of all means as to them, for
the obtaining a righteousness of our own before God. And as
to persons,
1. He considers the Gentiles, with all their notions of God,
their practice in religious worship, with their conversation
thereon. And from the whole of what might be observed
amongst them, he concludes that they neither were, nor could
be justified before God, but tha^thev were alK and that most
deservedly, obnoxious to the sentence of death. And what-
ever men may discourse concerning the justification and salva-
tion of any, without the revelation of the righteousness of God
by the Gospel from faith to faith, it is expressly contradictory
to his whole discourse, chap, i.from ver. 19 to the end.
2. He considers the Jews who enjoyed the written law, and
the privileges wlierewith it was accompanied, especially that of
circumcision, which was the outward seal of God's covenant.
And on many considerations, with many arguments, he ex-
cludes them also froni any possibility of attaining justification
before God by any oi^he privileges they enjoyed7or their own
compliance therewithal, chap. ii. And both sorts he excludes
distinctly from this privilege of righteousness before God, with
this one argument, that both of them sinned openly against
that which they took for the rule of their righteousness, namely,
the Gentiles against the light of nature, and the Jews against
the law; whence it inevitably follows, that none of them could
attain to the righteousness of their own rule. But he proceeds
farther to that which is common to them all. And,
3. He proves the same against all sorts of persons, whether
Jews or Gentiles, from the consideration of the universal de-
pravation of nature in them all, and the horrible effects that
necessarily ensue thereon in the hearts and lives of men, chap.
34
THE DOCTKINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
iii. So evidencing, that as they all were, so it could not fall
out but that nil ir^nst be shut up under sin, and come short of
righteousness. !So trom persons he proceeds to things or means
of righteousness. And,
4. Because the law was given of God immediately as the
whole and only rule of our obedience to him, and the works of
the law, are therefore all that is required of us, these may be
pleaded with some pretence as those whereby we may be justi-
fied. Wherefore in particular he considers the nature, use, and
end of the law, manifesting its utter insufficiency to be a means
of our justification before God, chap. iii. 19, 20.
5. It may be yet objected, that the law and its works may
be thus insufficient as it is obeyed by unbelievers in the state
of nature, without the aids of grace administered in the pro-
mise; but with respect to them who are regenerate and do
believe, whose faith and works are accepted with God, it may
be otherwise. To obviate this objection, he gives an instance
in two of the most eminent believers under the Old Testament,
namely, Abraham and David, declaring that all works what-
ever were excluded in and from tlieir justification, chap. iv.
On these principles, and by this gradation, he peremptorily
concludes, that all and every one of the sons of men, as to
any thing that is in themselves or can be done by them, or
be wrought in them, are "guilty before God," obnoxious to
death, shut up under sin, and have their mouths so stopped, as
to be deprived of all pleas in their own excuse; that they had
no righteousness wherewith to appear before God, and that all
the ways and means whence they expected it, were insufficient
to that purpose.
Hereon lie proceeds with his inquiry how men may be de-
livered from this condition, and come to*be justified in the sight
of God. And in the resolution hereof he makes no mention
of any thing in themselves, but only faith whereby we receive
the atonement. That whereby we are justified, he says, is the
righteousness of God which is by the faith of Christ Jesus, or
that we are justified freely by grace through the redemption
that is in him, chap. iii. 22, 23, 24, 25. And not content here
with this answer to the inquiry how lost convinced sinners
may come to be justified before God, namely, that it is by the
righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, by grace, by
the blood of Christ, as he is set forth for a propitiation; he im-
mediately proceeds to a positive exclusion of every thing in
and of ourselves that might pretend to an interest herein, as
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 35
that which is inconsistent with the righteousness of God as
revealed in the gospel, and witnessed to by the law and the
prophets. How contrary their scheme of divinity is to this
design of the Apostle, and his management of it, who affirm
that before the law men were justified by obedience to the
light of nature, and some particular revelations made to them
in things of their own especial private concernment; and that
after the giving of the law they were so by obedience to God
according to the directions thereof, as also that the heathen
might obtain the same benefit in compliance with the dictates
of reason, cannot be contradicted by any who have not a mind
to be contentious.
Answerable to this declaration of the mind of the Holy
Ghost herein by the Apostle, is the constant tenor of the Scrip-
ture speaking to the same purpose. The grace of God, the pro-
mise of mercy, the free pardon of sin, the blood of Christ, his
obedience and the righteousness of God in him, rested in and
received by faith, are every where asserted as the causes and
means of our justification, in opposition to any thing in our-
selves, so expressed as it useth to express the best of our obedi-
ence and the utmost of our personal righteousness. Wherever
mention is made of the duties, obedience, and personal right-
eousness of the best of men with respect to their justification,
they are all renounced by them, and they betake themselves
to sovereign grace and mercy alone. Some places to this pur-
pose may be recounted.
The foundation of the whole is laid in the first promise
wherein the destruction of the work of the devil by the suffer-
ing of the seed of the woman, is proposed as the only relief for
sinners, and only means of the recovery of the favour of God.
" It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel," Gen.
iii. 15. "Abraham believed in the Lord, and he counted it
unto him for righteousness," Gen. xv. 6. "And Aaron shall
lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess
over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the
goat; and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto
a land not inhabited," Lev. xvi. 21,22. "I will go in the
strength of the Lord God, I will make mention of thy right-
eousness, even of thine only," Psal. Ixxi. 16. " If thou shouldst
mark iniquity, 0 Lord, who shall stand? but there is forgive-
ness with thee that thou mayest be feared," Psal. cxxx. 3, 4.
" Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight
36 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
shall no man living be justified," Psal. cxliii. 2. "Behold he
put no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged with
folly, how much less on them that dwell in houses of clay,
whose foundation is in the dust," Job. iv. 18, 19. "Fury is
not in me ; who would set the briers and thorns against me in
battle, I would go through them, I would burn them together.
Or let him take hold of my strength that he may make peace
with me, and he shall make peace with me," Isa. xxvii, 4, 5.
" Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and
strength, in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and
glory," Isa. xlv. .24, 25. " All we like sheep have gone astray,
we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all. By his knowledge shall my
righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniqui-
ties," Isa. liii. 6. 11. " For this is his name whereby he shall
be called, the Lord our Righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 6. " But
we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are
as filthy rags," Isa. xliv. 6. " He shall finish the transgression
and make an end of sin, and make reconciliation for iniquity,
and bring in everlasting righteousness," Dan. ix. 24. " Unto
as many as received him he gave power to become the sons of
God, even to them that believe in his name," John i. 12. " For
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life," chap. iii. 14, 15;
see ver, 16, 17, 18. "Be it known therefore unto you men and
brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the for-
giveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from
all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of
Moses," Acts xiii. 38,39. "That they may receive forgive-
ness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by
faith that is in me," chap. xxvi. 18. " Being justified freely by
his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare at this
time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier
of him that believeth in Jesus. Where then is boasting? it is
excluded: by what law? of works? nay, but by the law of faith.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without
the deeds of the law," Rom. iii. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. " For if
Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory,
but not before God; for what saith the Scripture, Abraham be-
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 37
lieved God, and it was-counted to him for righteousness; now
to him that worketh is the reward, not reckoned of grace
but of debt. But to him that worketli not, but beUeveth on
him that jnstifieth the ungodly, liis faith is counted for right-
eousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of
the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without
works, saying. Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man unto whom the
Lord will not impute sin," Rom. iv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. " But not
as the offence, so also is the free gift; for if through the off"ence
of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift
by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the
gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation: but the free
gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's
off'ence death reigned by one, much more they which receive
abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign
in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by
the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of hfe. For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous," chap. v. 15, 16, 17, IS, 19. " There is there-
fore no condemnation unto them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. For the law
of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the
law of sin and death ; for what the law could not do, in that
it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh. That tlie righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
us," chap. viii. 1, 2, 3, 4. " For Christ is the end of the law
for righteousness unto every one that believeth," chap. x. 4.
" And if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace
is no more grace ; but if it be of works, then it is no more grace,
otherwise work is no more work," chap. xi. G. "But of him
are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," 1 Cor.
i. 30. " For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,"
2 Cor. V. 21. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: even we
have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the
faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the
4
38 THE DOCTRINE OF JIJSTIFICATIOX.
works of the law shall no flesh be justified," Gal. ii. 16. " But
that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, is evi-
dent. For the j List shall live by faith, and the law is not of faith;
but the man that doth them shall live in them. Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us," chap. iii. 11, 12, 13. " For by grace ye are saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of
works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workman-
ship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them," Ephes. ii. S, 9,
10. " Yea, doubtless, and I count all things loss for the excel-
lency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I
have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung
that I may win Christ; and be found in him, not having my
own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith," Phil. iii. 8, 9. " Who hath saved us and called us
with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according
unto his own purpose, and grace which was given us in Christ
Jesus before the world began," 2 Tim. i. 9. " That being justi-
fied by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope
of eternal life," Tit. iii. 7. " He hath once appeared in the end
of the world to put away sin," Heb. ix. 26. 28. " Having in him-
self purged our sins," chap. i. 3. " For by one offering he hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified," chap. x. 14. " For
the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth ns from all
sin," 1 John i. 7. " Wherefore unto him that loved us, and
washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us
kings and priests unto God and his father, to him be glory and
dominion for ever and ever, Amen." Rev. i. 5, 6.
These are some of the places which at present occur to
remembrance, wherein the Scripture represents to us the
grounds, causes, and reasons of our acceptation with God.
The especial import of many of them, and the evidence of truth
that is in them will be afterwards considered. Here we take
only a general view of them. And every thing in and of our-
selves under any consideration whatever, seems to be excluded
from our justification before God, faith alone excepted whereby
we receive his grace and the atonement. And on the other
side, the whole of our acceptation with him seems to be as-
signed to grace, mercy, the obedience and blood of Christ;
in opposition to our own worth and righteousness, or our
own works and obedience. And I cannot but suppose that the
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 39
soul of a convinced sinner, if not prepossessed with prejudice,
will in general not judge amiss whether of these things that are
set in opposition one to the other, he should betake himself
to, that he may be justified.
But it is replied, these things are not to be understood abso-
lutely and without limitations. Sundry distinctions are neces-
sary, that we may come to understand the mind of the Holy
Ghost and sense of the Scripture in these ascriptions to grace,
and exclusions of the law, our own works and righteousness
from our justification. For (1.) the law is either the moral or
the ceremonial law; the latter indeed is excluded from any
place in our justification, but not the former. (2.) Works re-
quired by the law are either wrought before faith, without the
aid of grace; or after believing, by the help of the Holy Ghost.
The former are excluded from our justification, but not the
latter. (3.) Works of obedience wrought after grace received,
may be considered either as sincere only, or absolutely perfect,
according to what was originally required in the covenant of
works. Those of the latter sort are excluded from any place
in our justification, but not those of the former. (4.) There is
a two-fold justification before God in this life, a first and a
second; and we must diligently consider with respect to
whether of these justifications anything is spoken in the Scrip-
ture. (5.) Justification may be considered either as to its be-
ginning, or as to its continuation, and so it has divers causes
under these divers respects. (6.) Works may be considered
either as meritorious ex condigno, so as their merit should arise
from their own intrinsic worth, or ex congruo, only with respect
to the covenant and promise of God. Those of the first sort
are excluded at least from the first justification; the latter may
have place both in the first and second. (7.) Moral causes may
be of many sorts; preparatory, dispository, meritorious, condi-
tionally efficient, or only sine quihus non. And we must
diligently inquire in what sense, under the notion of what cause
or causes, our works are excluded from our justification, and
luider what notions they are necessary thereunto. And there
is no one of these distinctions but it needs many more to ex-
plain it, which accordingly are made use of by learned men.
And so specious a colour may be put on these things, when
warily managed by the art of disputation, that very few are
able to discern the ground of them, or what there is of substance
in that which is pleaded for; and fewer yet, on whether side the
truth doth lie. But he who is really convinced of sin, and
40 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATIOIV.
being also sensible of what it is to enter into judgment with the
holy God, inquires for himself and not for others, how he may-
come to be accepted with him, will be apt upon the considera-
tion of all these distinctions and sub-distinctions wherewith
they are attended, to say to their diUXhoxs, Fecistis probe, incer-
tior Slim Tnulto, quain diidum. " You have done well! I am
much more at a loss than before." My inquiry is how I shall
come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God?
how shall I escape the wrath to come? what shall I plead in
judgment before God, that I may be absolved, acquitted, justi-
fied? where shall I have a righteousness that will endure a
trial in his presence? If I should be harnessed with a thousand
of these distinctions, I am afraid they would prove thorns and
briars, which he would pass through and consume.
The inquiry therefore is, upon the consideration of the state
of the person to be justified before mentioned and described,
and the proposal of the reliefs in our justification as now ex-
pressed, whether it be the wisest and safest course for such a
person seeking to be justified before God, to betake himself
absolutely, his Vvhole trust and confidence, to sovereign grace
and the mediation of Christ, or to have some reserve for, or
to place some confidence in, his own graces, duties, works
and obedience? In putting this great difference to umpirage,
that we may not be thought to fix on a partial arbitrator, we
shall refer it to one of our greatest and most learned adversa-
ries in this cause. And he positively gives us his determi-
nation and resolution in those known words.* " By reason of
the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of
vain glory, it is the safest course to repose our whole trust
in the mercy and kindness or grace of God alone."
And this determination of this important inquiry, he con-
firms with two testimonies of Scripture, as he might have done
it with many more. But those which he thought meet to men-
tion are not impertinent. The first is Dan. ix. 18. "We do not
present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses but
for thy great mercies." And the other is that of our Saviour,
Luke xvii. 10. "When ye have done all these things which
are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants." And
after he has confirmed his resolution with sundry testimonies
of the fathers, he closes his discourse with this dilemma,
* Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, et periculura inanis gloriae, Tutis-
simum est fiduciam totam in sola misericordia Dei ct benignitate reponere,
Bellar. de Justificat. lib. v. cap. 7, prop. 3.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION, 41
" Either a man hath true merits, or he hath not. If he hath
not, he is perniciously deceived (when he trusts in any
thing but the mercy of God alone) and seduces himself, trust-
ing in false merits; If he has them he loses nothing whilst
he looks not to them, but trusts in God alone." So that
whether a man have any good works or no, as to his justifica-
tion before God, it is best and safest for him, not to have any
regard to them, or put any trust in them. And if this be so,
he might have spared all his pains he took in writing his so-
phistical books about justification, whose principal design is to
seduce the minds of men into a contrary opinion. And so, for
aught I know, they may spare their labour also without any
disadvantage to the church of God, or their own souls, who
so earnestly contend for some kind of interest or other, for our
own duties and obedience in our justification before God, see-
ing it will be found that they place their own whole trust and
confidence in the grace of God by Jesus Christ alone. For to
what purpose do we labour and strive with endless disputa-
tions, arguments and distinctions to prefer our duties and obe-
dience to some office in our justification before God, if when
we have done all we find it the safest course m our own per-
sons to abhor ourselves with Job in the presence of God, to
betake ourselves to sovereign grace and mercy with the pub-
lican, and to place all our confidence in them through the obe-
dience and blood of Christ?
So died that great Emperor Charles V. as Thuanus gives the
account of his Novlssima. So he reasoned with himself;*
"That in himself he was altogether unworthy to obtain the
kingdom of heaven by his own works or merits, but that his
Lord God who enjoyed it on a double right or title, by inheri-
tance of the Father, and the merit of his own passion, was
contented with the one himself, and freely granted unto him
the other: on whose free grant he laid claim thereunto, and in
confidence thereof he should not be confounded; for the oil of
mercy is poured only into the vessel of faith or trust; that this
* Se quidem indignum esse qui propriis mcritis reg-nura cooloruni obtiiieret;
sed Donihium Dcum suum qui illud duplici jure obtineat, et patris haereditatc,
et passioiiis merito, altero contcntum esse, alterurn sibi donare; ex cujus dono
illud sibi merito vendicet, hacque fiduoia fretus minime confundatur ; neque enim
oleum miscricordiae nisi in vase fiduciae poni ; banc hominis fiduciam esse a se
deficientis et innitentis domino sue; alioquin propriis meritis fidere, non fidei
esse sed pcrfidia;; peccata dcleri per Dei indulgentiam, idooque credere nos debere
peccata deleri non posse nisi ab eo cui soli peccavimus, et in quern peccatuni
non cadit, per quem solum nobis peccata condonentur.
4*
42 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
is the trust of a man despairing in himself, and resting in his
Lord; otherwise to trust to his own works or merits, is not
faith but treachery; that sins are blotted out by the mercy of
God ; and therefore we ought to believe that our sins can be par-
doned by him alone against whom alone we have sinned; with
whom there is no sin, and by whom alone sins are forgiven."
This is the faith of men when they come to die, and those
who are exercised with temptations whilst they live. Some
are hardened in sin, and endeavour to leave this world with-
out thoughts of another. Some are stupidly ignorant, who
neither know nor consider what it is to appear in the presence
of God, and to be judged by him. Some are seduced to place
their confidence in merits, pardons, indulgences, and future
suiTrages for the dead. But such as are acquainted with God
and themselves in any spiritual manner, who fake a view of
the time that is past, and approaching eternity, into which they
must enter by the judgment seat of God, however they may
have thought, talked, and disputed about their own works and
obedience, looking on Christ and his righteousness only to
make up some small defects in themselves, will come at last
to an universal renunciation of what they have been and are,
and betake themselves to Christ alone for righteousness or
salvation. And in the whole ensuing discourse I shall as little
as is possible mix myself in any curious scholastical disputes.
This is the substance of what is pleaded for, that men should
renounce all confidence in themselves, and every thing that
may give countenance thereunto; betaking themselves to
the grace of God by Christ alone, for righteousness and salva-
tion. This God designs in the gospel, 1 Cor. i. 29, 30, 31, and
herein whatever difficulties we may meet withal in the expli-
cation of some propositions and terms that belong to the doc-
trine of justification, about which men have various concep-
tions, I doubt not of the internal concurrent suffrage of them
who know any thing as they ought of God and themselves.
Fifthly, There is in the Scripture represented to us a com-
mutation between Christ and believers, as to sin and right-
eousness, that is in the imputation of their sins to him, and
of his righteousness to them. In the improvement and ap-
plication hereof to our own souls, no small part of the life
and exercise of faith consists.
This was taught the church of God in offering of the scape
goat. " And Aaron shall lay his hands on the head of the live
goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 43
Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them
on the head of the goat; and the goat shall bear upon him all
their iniquities," Levit. xvi. 21, 22. Whether this goat sent
away with this burthen upon him did live, and so was a type
of the life of Christ in his resurrection after his death, or whe-
ther he perished in the wilderness, being cast down the preci-
pice of a rock by him that conveyed him away as the Jews
suppose; it is generally acknowledged, that what was done to
him and with him, was only a representation of what was done
really in the person of Jesus Christ. And Aaron did not only
confess the sins of the people over the goat, but he also put
them all on his head, ^•'j'lt'n i^Nn Sp anxinji "and he shall give them
all to be on the head of the goat;" in answer whereto it is
said that he bare them all upon him. This he did by virtue of
the divine institution, wherein was a ratification of what was
done. He did not transfuse sin from one subject into another,
but transferred the guilt of it from one to another. And to
evidence this translation of sin from the people to the sacri-
fice, in his confession he put and fixed both his hands on his
head. Thence the Jews say, that all Israel was made as inno-
cent on the day of expiation as they were in the day of crea-
tion;— from ver. 30. Wherein they came short of perfection or
consummation thereby the Apostle declares, Heb. x. But this
is the language of every expiatory sacrifice, (7i/o</ in ejus caput
sit; let the guilt be on him. Hence the sacrifice itself was
called nxan and ^'^'^ sin and guilt, Levit. iv. 29. vii. 2, 10. 17.
And therefore where there was an uncertain murder, and none
could be found that was liable to punishment thereon, that guilt
might not come upon the land, nor the sin be imputed to the
whole people, an heifer was to be slain by the elders of the
city that was next to the place where the murder was com-
mitted to take away the guilt of it, Dent. xxi. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
But whereas this was only a moral representation of the pun-
ishment due to guilt, and no sacrifice, the guilty person being
not known; those who slew the heifer did not put their hands
on him, so to transfer their own guilt to him, but washed their
hands over him, to declare their personal innocency. By these
means, as in all other expiatory sacrifices, did God instruct the
church HI the transferring of the guilt of sin, to him who
was to bear all their iniquities, with their discharge and justi-
fication thereby.
So God " laid on Christ the iniquities of us all," that " by
his stripes we might be healed," Isa. liii. 5, 6. Our iniquity
44 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
was laid on him, and he bare it, ver. 11, and through his bear-
ing of it, we are freed from it. His stripes are our heahng,
our sin was his, imputed to him; his merit is ours, imputed
to us. " He was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that
we might become the righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor.
V. 21. This is that commutation I mentioned. He was made
sin for us, we are made the righteousness of God in him; God
not imputing sin to us, ver. 19, but imputing righteousness
to us, doth it on this ground alone, that he was " made sin
for us." And if by his being made sin, only his being made a
sacrifice for sin is intended, it is to the same purpose. For the
formal reason of any thing being made an expiatory sacrifice,
was the imputation of sin to it by divine institution. The
same is expressed by the same Apostle, Rom. viii. 3,4. " God
sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, con-
demned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might
be fulfilled in us." The sin was made his, he answered for it,
and the righteousness which God requires by the law is made
ours; the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us; not by our
doing it, but by his. This is that blessed change and commu-
tation wherein alone the soul of a convinced sinner can find
rest and peace. So he hath " redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us, that the blessing of faithful
Abraham might come upon us," Gal. iii. 13, 14. The curse of
the law contained all that was due to sin; this belonged unto
us. But it was transferred on him; He was made a curse,
whereof his hanging on a tree was the sign and token. Hence
he is said to " bear all our sins in his own body upon the tree,"
1 Pet. i. 24, because his hangmg on the tree was the token of
his bearing the curse. For he that is hanged on a tree is the
curse of God, Deut. xxi. 23. And in the blessing of faithful
Abraham, all righteousness and acceptation with God is in-
cluded; for Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to
him for righteousness.
But because some, who for reasons best known to them-
selves, do take all occasions to except against my writings,
have in particular raised an impertinent clamour about some-
what that I formerly delivered to this purpose, I shall declare
the whole of my judgment herein, in the words of some of
those whom they can pretend no quarrel against that I know
of.
The excellent words of Justin Martyr deserve tlie first
place. " He gave his Son a ransom for us; the Holy for trans-
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 45
gressors; tlie innocent for the nocent; the just for the unjust;
the incorruptible for the corrupt; the immortal for mortals.
For what else could hide or cover our sins but his righteous-
ness? in whom else could we wicked and ungodly ones be
justified, [or esteemed righteous,] but in the Son of God alone?
0 SWEET COMMUTATION; [or change!] 0 unsearchable
work [or curious operation !] 0 blessed beneficence exceeding
all expectation! That the iniquity of many should be hid in
one just one, and the righteousness of one should justify many
transgressors."* And Gregory Nyssen speaks to the same
purpose. "He hath transferred unto himself the filth of our
sins, and communicated unto me his purity, and made me par-
taker of his beauty."! So Augustine also. " He was sin that
we might be righteousness, not our own but the righteousness
of God, not in ourselves but in him. As he was sin not his
own but ours ; not in himself but in us."J The old Latin trans-
lation rendering those words, Psal. xxii. 1. tuns' nai Verba
delictorum ineorum; he thus comments on the place. " How,
saith he, of my sins; but because he prayeth for our sins ; and
hath made our sins to be his, that he might make his righteous-
ness to be ours."§ io frji y-Kvx£La.i ivta-kxayrn; 0 sweet Commutation
and change! And Chrysostom to the same purpose; on those
words of the apostle, " That we might be made the righteous-
ness of God in him."|| " What word, what speech is this,
what mind can comprehend or express it? for he saith he
* AtlTOC TOV iS'lOV VICV a.TrfS'QTO XVTpOV VTTip itJUCeV, TOV aytCV VTTifl etVO/UCtV, TOV clKAKOV ClTTip
Taiv naxft))', TOV S'lx.at.tov vTrip Tcev a.J'ix.wv, tov A^^^pTov v7np rcev 6v>iTa>v. ti ystp a}.ko T«f
a^apT;*c «;Cta)V xtTuvxfl/) no-Xv-^at « anncv i'lK^.totniin-^ iv Tivt S'lucLiaj^nvAi i'vut^ov TOfc av^^MOt/c
M//a? KdLt a.(riQitQ n ev juovai Tie hlu) tou diov; ce rn; yKuzuag ctwcLKKctyii^, ce t»c 5tv«|<;^v;a<rT(5u
S)tjU.loupyid.;, u> Tcev aTrpoa-S'oKii'Tcev iuieyitricev; «v* ctvofAtx ju.iv TroKKm iv S',Ka.tai ivt )ievp(l>i,
hKM^7vn (Tj hoc TTCiKKcvi dLvofAovQ i'lKMcuTn. Epist. ad Diognet.
t MsT£(9s/c ydip TTgOQ Iautcv tsv t&'V yijuu'v a.y.ApTim puTrov, jurrctS'cDH.i /uot t«c iAinou
KctBapoTuro;' Koivcuvov fxi tsi/ sat/Tou Ku,KKotJc a.7rigydLTa.fjLivoc. Orat. ii. in Cant.
X Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, nee nostra sed Dei; nee in nobis sed in ipso,
.«!icut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, nee in se sed in nobis constitutum.
Enchirid. ad Laurent, cap. 41.
§ Quomodo ergo dicit, delictorum meorum? nisi quia pro delictis nostris ipse
precatur; et delieta nostra, delicta sua fecit, ut justitiam suam nostram justitiam
faceret.
II Yloia; TAvTo, Xoyo;, ttoio; tolvta TrxpAo'THTAi: S'uvyia-iTo.i v:vc; tov ya.g cT/^a/cv, <p>i(Tiv,
iTTOIHiTiV afAApTUikOV, 'tVA TOUC a/UHpTCeACj; 7rOI>l(rtt i'tKO.tOVQ. /Jt-CLKKOV S'» OvS'i OVTU; ilTTiV; CLKKU. a
■TroKKce /uii^ov nv , ou yctp i^iv i^nKiv, ciaa' a.uTm txv ttoiothtu. cv yap imtv, iTntnTiv a/uupTO)-
KOV, etAK* a/UApTtCtV^ CU^l tov jUiV IX/xapT-XVOVTa. [XOVOVi a>.K<t tov fJI-^^Si yVOVTO. Q.fJl.i.pTl:tV. IV'JL
KtU tIJUilC yiVlD/UiSsi, OUK Um, S^IKXlOt, dLKK<t SlKMOO-UVH, KUl SiOV JmoLIOO-UVH. biOV yttp iTTlV oilTH,
OTitv juii t^ igym (oTW km x,hKiJa a.va.yiin Tiva /un iupit^wAt) clkk^ cltto yjtpiTOC S'iK:tiiic^a:fj.iv,,
£v9a TTitra a^wa^T/rf^ i<^:tvtTTaj. In 2 Epist. ad Corintii. cap. v. Horn. H.
46
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
made him who was righteous to be made a sinner, that he
might make sinners righteous; nor yet doth he say so merely,
but that which is far more subhme and excellent. For he
speaks not of an inclination or affection, but expresseth the
quality itself. For he says not, he m.ade him a sinner, but sin,
that we might be made not merely righteous but righteousness,
and that, the righteousness of God, when we are justified not
by works, (for if we should, there must be no spot found
in them) but by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out. So
Bernard also Epist. 190, ad Innocent, "It was man who
owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For, he says, 'if
one died for all, then were all dead ;' to wit, that the satisfac-
tion of one might be imputed to all, as he alone bore the sins
of all. Nor can it now be found that one has sinned, and an-
other made satisfaction; because Christ alone is the head and
body."* And many more speak to the same purpose. Hence
Luther before he engaged in the work of reformation, in an
epistle to one George Spenlein,amonk, was not afraid to write
after this manner ; " My dear brother, learn Christ and him
crucified; learn to sing to him, and despairing of yourself, to
say to him, 'Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I
am thy sin ; thou hast assumed what was mine, and given me
what was thine; thou hast assumed what thou wast not, and
given to me what I was not.' He has undertaken for thee,
and made thy sins his own, and his righteousness, thine;
cursed is he who believeth not this."t
If those who show themselves now so quarrelsome almost
about every word that is spoken concerning Christ and his
righteousness, had ever been harassed in their consciences
about the guilt of sin, as this man was, they would think it
no strange matter to speak and write as he did. Yea some
there are who have lived and died in the communion of the
church of Rome itself that have given their testimony to this
* Homo qui dcbuit, homo qui solvit. Nam si unus, inquit, pro omnibus mor-
tuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt; ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus impute-
tur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit. Nee alter jam inveniatur qui foras
fecit, alter qui satisfecit; quia caput et corpus unus est Christus.
t Mi dulcis frater, disce Christum et hunc crucifixum, disce ei cantare, et de
teipso desperans dicere ei; Tu Domine Jesu es justitia mea, ego autem sum pec-
catum tuum; tu assumpsisti meum, et dedisti mihi tuum, assumpsisti quod non
eras, et dedisti mihi quod non eram. Ipse suscepit te et peccata tua fecit sua,
et suam justitiam fecit tuam; maledictus qui hffic non credit. Epist. An. 1516.
Tom. i.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 47
truth. So speaks Taulerus; Meditat. vitse Christ, cap. 7.*
" Christ took upon him all the sins of the world, and wil-
lingly underwent such grief of heart for them, as if he himself
had committed them." And again speaking in the person of
Christ.t " Whereas the great sin of Adam cannot go away,
I beseech thee heavenly Father punish it in me. For I take all
his sins upon myself If then this tempest of anger be risen
for me, cast me into the sea of my most bitter passion." See
in the justification of these expressions, Heb. x. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10. The discourse of Albertus Pighius to this purpose, th'ough
often cited and urged, shall be once again repeated, both for
its worth and truth, as also to let some men see how fondly
they have pleased themselves in reflecting on some expressions
of mine, as though I had been singular in them. His words are,
after others to the same purpose: " God was in Christ, saith the
Apostle, reconciling the world unto himself; not imputing unto
men their sins. In him, therefore, we are justified before God,
not in ourselves, not by our own, but by his righteousness,
which is imputed unto us now communicating with him.
Wanting righteousness of our own, we are taught to seek for
righteousness without ourselves in him. So he saith, ' him who
knew not sin, he made to be sin for us,' that is; an expiatory sa-
crifice for sin, ' that we might be made the righteousness of God
in him;' we are made righteous in Christ not with our own but
with the righteousness of God. By what right? the right of
friendship, which makes all common among friends, accord-
ing to the ancient celebrated proverb. Being ingrafted into
Christ, fastened, united to him, he makes his things ours,
communicates his riches to us, interposes his righteousness
between the judgment of God and our unrighteousness, and
under that, as under a shield and buckler, he hides us from that
divine wrath which we have deserved ; he defends and pro-
tects us therewith, yea he communicates it to us, and makes
it ours, so as that being covered and adorned therewith, we may
boldly and securely place ourselves before the divine tribunal
and judgment, so as not only to appear righteous, but so to be.
For even as the Apostle affirms, that by one man's fault we
were all made sinners, so is the righteousness of Christ alone,
* Christus omnia mundi peccata in se recepit, tantumque pro illis ultro sibi
assumpsit dolorem cordis ac si ipse ea perpetrasset.
t Quandoquidem peccatum Adts niultum abire non potest, obsecro te pater
coeiestis, ut ipsum in me vindices. Ego eiiim omnia illius peccata in me recipio.
Si hsec irae tempestas, propter me orta est, mitte me in mare amarissimae passionis.
48
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
efficacious in the justification of us all; and ^as by the disobedi-
ence of one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience
of one man (saith he) many are made righteous.' This is the
righteousness of Christ, even his obedience, whereby in all
things he fulfilled the will of his Father. As on the other hand
our unrighteousness is our disobedience, and our transgression
of the commands of God. But that our righteousness is placed
in the obedience of Christ, it is from hence, that we being in-
corporated into him, it is accounted unto us as if it were ours;
so as that therewith we are esteemed righteous. And as Jacob
of old, whereas he was not the first born, being hid under the
habit of his brother, and clothed with his garment which
breathed a sweet savour, presented himself to his father, that
in the person of another, he might receive the blessing of the
primogeniture; so is it necessary that we should he hid under
the precious purity of the first born, our eldest brother, be fra-
grant with his sweet savour, and have our sin buried and co-
vered with his perfection, that we may present ourselves before
our most Holy Father, to obtain from him the blessing of right-
eousness," And again; " God therefore doth justify us by his
free grace or goodness wherewith he embraces us in Christ Jesus,
when he clothes us with his innocency and righteousness as we
are ingrafted into him; for as that alone is true and perfect
which only can endure in the sight of God, so that alone ought
to be presented and pleaded for us before the divine tribunal,
as the advocate of, or plea in our cause; resting hereon, we
here obtain the daily pardon of sin; with whose purity being
covered, our filth and the uncleanness of our imperfections are
not imputed to us, but are covered as if they were buried,
that they may not come into the judgment of God; until the
old man being destroyed and slain in us, divine goodness re-
ceives us into peace with the second Adam."* So far he; ex-
*Quoniam quidcm (inquit Ai)ostoIus) Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcili-
ans sibi, non imputans hoininibus sua delicta; et deposuit apud nos verbuin re-
conciliationis. In ilia ergo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis ; non nostra sed
illius justitia, quiB nobis cum illo jam communicantibus imputatur. ProprifB jus-
titicB inopes, extra nos, iu illo doccmur justitiam quterere. Cum, inquit, qui pec-
catum non noverat, pro nobis pcccatum fecit; lioc est, hostiam peccati expiatri-
eeni, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in ipso, non nostra, sed Dei justitia justi effici-
mur in Christo; quo jure ? AmicitiiB, quae coinmunioncm omnium inter amicos
facit, juxta vetus et celebratissimum proverbium; Christo insertis, conglutinatis
et unitis et sua nostra facit, suas divitias nobis communicat, suam justitiam inter
Patris judicium et nostram injustitiam interponlt, et sub ea veluti sub umbone ac
clypeo a divina quam commeruimus, ira nos abscondit, tuetur ac protegit, imo ean-
dem nobis impertit et nostram facit, qua tecti ornatiquc audacter et secure jam di-
THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION. 49.
pressing the power which the influence of divine truth had on
his mind, contrary to the interest of the cause wherein he was
engaged, and the loss of his reputation with them, for whom
in all other things, he was one of the fiercest champions. And
some among the Roman Church, who cannot bear this asser-
tion of the commutation of sin and righteousness by imputation
between Christ and believers, no more than some among our-
selves, do yet affirm the same concerning the righteousness of
other men. " Paul seems to instruct us in a kind of merchan-
dise. He says, You abound in money and are destitute of
righteousness; on the contrary, they abound in righteousness
and are in want of money. Let an exchange be made. Give
to the pious poor the money which you have in abundance
and they need; so they in return will communicate to you their
righteousness in which they abound, and of which you are
destitute."* But I have mentioned these testimonies princi-
pally-to be a relief to some men's ignorance, who are ready to
speak evil of what they understand not.
vino nos sistamus tribunal! et judicio : justique non solum appareamus, sed etiam
simus. Quemadmodum enim unius delicto pcccatores nos etiam factos affirmat
Apostolus : ita unius Christijustitiam in justificandis nobis omnibus efficacem esse;
Et sicut per inobedientiam unius liominis peceatores constituti sunt multi, sic per
obedientiam unius justi (inquit) constituentur multi. Hoec est Christi justitia, ejus
obedientia, qua voluntatem Patris sui perfecit in omnibus; sicut contra, nostra in-
justitia est nostra inobedientia, et mandatorum Dei praevaricatio. In Christi autem
obedientia quod nostra collocatur justitia inde est, quod nobis illi incorporatis, ac
si nostra esset, accepta ea fertur : ut ea ipsa etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut
ille quondam Jacob, quum nativitate primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris oc-
cultatus, atque ejus vcste indutus, quas odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insimia-
vit Patri, ut sub aliena persona benedictionem primogeniturse acciperet : Ita et
nos sub Christi primogeniti fratris nostri preciosa puritate delitescere, bono ejus
odore fragrare, ejus pcrfectione vitia nostra sepeliri et obtegi, atque ita nos piissi-
mo Patri ingerere, ut justitise benedictionem ab eodem assequamur, necesse est.
And afterwards. Justificat ergo nos Deus Pater bonitate sua gratuita, qua nos in
Christo complectitur, dum eidem insertos innocentia et justitia Christi nos induit;
quEe una ut vera et perfecta est quee Dei sustinere conspectum potest, ita unum
pro nobis sisti oportet tribunali divini judicii et veluti causEe nostrce intercessorem
eidem repraesentari : qua subnisi etiam hie obtineremus remissionem peccatorum
nostrorum assiduam: cujus puritate velatce non imputantur nobis sordes nostras;
imperfectionum immunditiae, sed veluti sepultfE conteguntur, ne in judicium Dei
veniant : donee confecto in nobis, et plane extincto veteri homine, divina bonitas
nos in beatam pacem cum novo Adam recipiat.
* Mercaturam quandam docere nos Paulus videtur. Abundatis, inquit, vos pe-
cunia et estis inopes justitias ; contra illi abundant justitia, et sunt inopes pecuniae;
iial quffidam commutatio; date vos piis egentibus pecnniam quae vobis affluit, et
illis deficit; sic futurum est ut illi vicissim justitiam suam qua abundant, et qua
vos estis destituti, vobis communicent. Ilosius; de expresso Dei verbo, torn. ii.
pag. 21.
50 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
This blessed permiuatioii as to sin and righteousness, is
represented to us in the Scripture as a principal object of our
faith; as that whereon our peace with God is founded. And
although both these, the imputation of sin to Christ, and the
imputation of righteousness to us, be the acts of God and not
ours, yet are we by faith to exemplify them in our own souls,
and really to perform what on our part is required to their ap-
plication to us, whereby we receive the atonement, Rom. v.
11. Christ calls to him all those that are " weary and heavy
laden," Matt. xi. 28. The weight that is upon the consciences
of men wherewith they are laden, is the burden of sin. So the
Psalmist complains that his sins were a burden too heavy for
him. Psalm xxxviii. 4. Such was Cain's apprehension of his
guilt, Gen. iv. 13. This burden Christ bore when it was laid
on him by divine estimation. For so it is said S3d> j^^m anjin
Isa. liii. 11. "He shall bear their sins'' on him as a burden.
And this he did when God " made to meet upon him the iniquity
of us all," ver. 6. In the application of this to our own souls,
as it is required that we be sensible of the weight and burden
of our sins, and how it is heavier than we can bear, so the
Lord Christ calls us to him with it, that we may be eased.
This he doth in the preaching of the gospel, wherein he is
evidently crucified before our eyes, Gal. iii. 1. In the view
which faith hath of Christ crucified, (for faith is a looking to
him, Isa. xlv. 22, chap. Ixv. 1, answering to their looking to the
brazen serpent who were stung with fiery serpents, John iii.
14, 15,) and under a sense of his invitation, (for faith is our
coming to him upon his call and invitation) to come to him
with our burdens, a believer considers that God has laid all
our iniquities upon him, yea that he has done so, is an espe-
cial object whereon faith is to act itself, which is faith in his
blood. Hereon doth the soul approve of, and embrace the
righteousness and grace of God, with the infinite condescension
and love of Christ himself. It gives its consent that what is
thus done, is what becomes the infinite wisdom and grace of
God, and therein it rests. Such a person seeks no more to es-
tablish his own righteousness, but submits to the righteous-
ness of God. Herein by faith doth he leave that burden on
Christ, which he called him to bring with him, and complies
with the wisdom and righteousness of God in laying it upon
him. And herewithal doth he receive the everlasting right-
eousness, which the Lord Christ brought in when he made an
end of sin, and reconciliation for transgressors.
THE DOCTUINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 51
The reader may be pleased to observe, that I am not debat-
ing these things argumentatively in such propriety of expres-
sions as is required in a scholastical disputation, which shall be
done afterwards so far as I judge it necessary. But I am doing
that which indeed is better and of more importance; namely,
declaring the experience of faith in the expressions of the
Scripture, or such as are analogous to them. And I had rather\
be instrumental in the communication of light and knowledge )
to the meanest believer, than to have the clearest success
against prejudiced disputers. Wherefore by faith thus acting
are we justified and have peace with God. Other foundation
in this matter can no man lay that will endure the trial.
Nor are we to be moved that men who are unacquainted
with these things in their reality and power, do reject the
whole work of faith herein, as an easy effort of fancy or imagi-
nation. For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to the
best of the natural wisdom of men. Neither can any under-
stand them but by the Spirit of God. Those who know the
terror of the Lord, who have been really convinced and made
sensible of the guilt of their apostasy from God, and of their
actual sins in that state, and what a fearful thing it is to fall
into the hands of the living God, seeking thereon after a real
solid foundation whereon they may be accepted with him,
have other thoughts of these things, and find believing to be
a thing quite of another nature than such men suppose. It
is not a work of fancy or imagination to men to deny and
abhor themselves, to subscribe to the righteousness of God in
denouncing death as due to their sins, to renounce all hopes and
expectations of relief from any righteousness of their own, to
mix the word and promise of God concerning Christ and right-
eousness by him with faith, so as to receive the atonement, and
therewithal to give up themselves to an universal obedience to
God. And as for them to whom through pride and self-conceit
on the one hand, or ignorance on the other, it is so; we have
in this matter no concernment with them. For to whom these
things are only the work of fancy, the gospel is a fable.
Something to this purpose I had written long since in a prac-
tical discourse concerning communion with God. And whereas
some men of an inferior condition, have found it useful for the
strengthening themselves in their dependences on some of their
superiors, or in compliance with their own inclination, to cavil
at my writings and revile their author; that book has been
principally singled out to exercise their faculty and good inten-
52 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
tions upon. This course is steered of late by one Mr. Hotch-
kisse, in a book about justification, wherein in particular he
falls very severely on that doctrine which for the substance of
it, is here again proposed. And were it not that I hope it may
be somewhat useful to him to be a little warned of his immor-
alities in that discourse, I should not in the least have taken
notice of his other impertinences. The good man, I perceive,
can be angry with persons whom he never saw, and about
things which he cannot or will not understand, so far as to re-
vile them with most opprobrious language. For my part,
although I have never written any thing designedly on this
subject, or the doctrine of justification before now; yet he
could not but discern by what was occasionally delivered in
that discourse, that I maintain no other doctrine herein, but what
is the common faith of the most learned men in all Protestant
churches. And the reasons why I am singled out for the ob-
ject of his petulancy and spleen, are too manifest to need repe-
tition. But I shall yet inform him of what perhaps he is igno-
rant; namely, that I esteem it no small honour that the re-
proaches wherewith the doctrine opposed by him is reproached,
fall upon me. And the same I say concerning all the reviling
and contemptuous expressions that his ensuing pages are filled
with. But as to the present occasion I beg his excuse if I be-
lieve him not, that the reading of the passages which he men-
tions out of my book, filled him " with horror and indignation,"
as he pretends. For whereas he acknowledges that my words
may have a sense which he approves of (and which therefore
must of necessity be good and sound) what honest and sober
person would not rather take them in that sense, than wrest
them to another, so to cast himself under the disquietment of
a fit of horrible indignation. In this fit I suppose it was, if
such a fit indeed did befall him (as one evil begets another)
that he thought he might insinuate something of my denial of
" the necessity of our own personal repentance and obedience."
For no man who had read that book only of all my writings,
could with the least regard to conscience or honesty give coun-
tenance to such a surmise, unless his mind was much discom-
posed by the unexpected invasion of a fit of horror. But such
is his dealing with me from first to last, nor do I know where
to fix on any one instance of his exceptions against me, wherein
I can suppose he had escaped his pretended fit, and was re-
turned to himself, that is to honest and ingenuous thoughts,
wherewith I hope he is mostly conversant. But though I cannot
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION, 53
miss in the justification of this charge by considering any in-
stance of his reflections, yet I shall at present take that which
he insists longest upon, and fills his discourse about it witli most
scurrility of expressions. And this is in the 164th page of his
book and those that follow. For there he disputes fiercely
against me for making this to be an undue end of our serving
God, namely, that we may flee from the wrath to come. And
who would not take this for an inexpiable crime in any, espe-
cially in him who has written so much of the nature and use
of threatenings under the gospel, and the fear that ought to be
ingenerated by them in the hearts of men, as I have done?
Wherefore so great a crime being the object of them, all hisre-
vilings seem not only to be excused but hallowed. But what
if all this should prove a wilful prevarication, not becoming a
good man, much less a minister of the gospel! My words as
reported and transcribed by himself are these: "some there are
that do the service of the house of God as the drudgery of their
lives; the principle they yield obedience upon is a spirit of
bondage unto fear; the rule they do it by is the law in its dread
and rigour, exacting it of them to the utmost without mercy
or mitigation; the end they do it for is tp-fly from the wrath
to come, to pacify conscience, and to seek for righteousness as
it were by the works of the law." What follows to the same
purpose he omits, and what he adds as my words are not so,
but his own. Ubi piidor, iiui fides? That which I affirmed
to be a part of an evil end when and as it makes up one entire
end by being mixed with sundry other things expressly men-
tioned, is singled out, as if I had denied that in any sense it
might be a part of a good end in our obedience, which I never
thought, I never said, I have spoken and written much to the
contrary. And yet to countenance himself in this disingenu-
ous procedure, besides many other untrue reflections, he adds
that I insinuate, that those whom I describe, are Christians that
seek righteousness by faith in Christ. I must needs tell this
author that my faith in this matter is, that such works as these
will have no influence in his justification; and that the princi-
pal reason why I suppose I shall not in my progress in this
discourse take any particular notice of his exceptions either
against the truth or me, next to this consideration, that they
are all trite and obsolete, and as to what seems to be of any
force in them will occur to me in other authors from whom
they are derived, is that I may not have a continual occasion
to declare how forgetful he has been of all the rules of ingenu-
5*
54 THE DOCTBINE OF JPSTIFICATION.
ousness, yea and of common honesty in his deaUng with me.
For that which gave the occasion to this present unpleasing
digression, it being no more as to the substance of it, but that
our sins were imputed unto Christ, and that his righteousness
is imputed unto us, is that, in the faith whereof I am assured
I shall hve and die, though he should write twenty as learned
books against it, as those which he has already published; and
in what sense I believe these things, shall be afterwards de-
clared. And although I judge no men upon the expressions
that fall from them in polemical writings, wherein on many
occasions they affront their own experience, and contradict
their own prayers, yet as to those who understand not that
blessed commutation of sins and righteousness as to the sub-
stance of it, which I have pleaded for, and the actings of our
faith with respect thereto, I shall be bold to say, that "if the
gospel be hid, it is hid to them that perish."
Sixthly, We can never state our thoughts aright in this mat-
ter, unless we have a clear apprehension of, and satisfaction in
the introduction of grace by Jesus Christ into the whole of our
relation to God, with its respect to all parts of our obedience.
There was no such thing, nothing of that nature or kind, in the
first constitution of that relation and obedience by the law of
our creation. We were made in a state of immediate relation
to God in our own persons, as our creator, preserver and re-
warder. There was no mystery of grace in the covenant of
works. No more was required to the consummation of that
state, but what was given us in our creation, enabling us to
render rewardable obedience. " Do this and live," was the
sole rule of our relation to God. There was nothing in reli-
gion originally of that which the gospel celebrates under the
name of the grace, kindness and love of God, whence all our
favourable relation to God now proceeds, and whereinto it is
resolved; nothing of the interposition of a mediator with re-
spect to our righteousness before God and acceptance with him,
which is at present the life and soul of religion, the substance
o{ the gospel, and the centre of all the truths revealed in it.
The introduction of these things is that which makes our reli-
gion a mystery, yea, a great mystery, if the Apostle may be
believed, 1 Tmi. iii. 16. All religion at first was suited and
commensurable to reason; but being now become a mystery,
men for the most part are very unwilling to receive it. But
so it must be; and unless we are restored to our primitive rec-
titude, a religion suited to the principles of our reason, which
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 55
it has none but what answer that first state, will not serve our
turns.
Wherefore of this introduction of Christ and grace in him
into our relation to God, there are no notions in the natural
conceptions of our minds, nor are they discoverable by reason
in the best and utmost of its exercise, 1 Cor. ii. 14. For before
our understandings were darkened, and our reason debased by
the fall, there were no such things revealed or proposed to us;
yea, the supposition of them is inconsistent with, and contra-
dictory to, that whole state and condition wherein we were to
Uve to God; seeing they all suppose the entrance of sin. And
it is not likely that our reason as now corrupted, should be
willing to embrace that which it knew nothing of in its best
condition, and which was inconsistent with that way of attain-
ing happiness which was absolutely suited to it. For it has
no faculty or power but what it has derived from that state.
And to suppose it is now of itself suited and ready to embrace
such heavenly mysteries of truth and grace, as it had no notions
of, nor could have, in the state of mnocency, is to suppose that
by the fall our eyes were " opened to ktiow good and evil," in
the sense that the serpent deceived our first parents with an
expectation of. Whereas, therefore, our reason was given us
for our only guide in the first constitution of our natures, it is
naturally unready to receive what is above it, and, as corrupt-
ed, has an enmity thereto.
Hence in the first open proposal of this mystery, namely, of
the love and grace of God in Christ, of the introduction of a
mediator and his righteousness into our relation to God, in that
way which God in infinite wisdom had designed; the whole
of it was looked on as mere folly by the generality of the wise
and rational men of the world, as the Apostle declares at large,
1 Cor. ch. i. Neither was the faith of them ever really received
in the world, without an act of the Holy Gliost iipon the mind
in its renovation. And those who judge that there is nothing
more needful to enable the mind of man to receive the myste-
ries of the gospel in a due manner, but the outward proposal
of the doctrine thereof, do not only deny the depravity of our
nature by the fall, but, by just consequence, wholly renounce
that grace whereby we are to be recovered. Wherefore rea-
son (as has been elsewhere proved) acting on and by its own
innate principles and abilities, conveyed to it from its original
state, and as now corrupted, is repugng-ut to the whole intro-
duction of grace by Christ into our relation to God, Rom. viii.
56 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
7. An endeavour, therefore, to reduce the doctrine of the
gospel, or what is declared therein, concerning the hidden
mystery of the grace of God in Christ, to the principles and in-
clinations of the minds of men, or to reason as it remains in us
after the entrance of sin, under the power at least of those no-
tions and conceptions of things religious, which it retains from
its first state and condition, is to debase and corrupt them, (as
we shall see in sundry instances) and so make way for their
rejection.
Hence it is very difficult to keep up, doctrinally and practi-
cally, the minds of men to the reality and spiritual height of
this mystery. For men naturally neither understand it, nor
like it. And therefore every attempt to accommodate it to the
principles and inbred notions of corrupt reason is very accept-
able to many, yea, to the most. For the things which such
men speak and declare, are, without more ado, without any
exercise of faith or prayer, without any supernatural illumina-
tion, easily intelligible, and exposed to the common sense of
mankind. But whereas, a declaration of the mysteries of the
gospel can obtain no admission into the minds of men, but by
the effectual working of the Spirit of God, Ephes. i. 17, 18, 19,
it is generally looked on as difficult, perplexed, unintelligible;
and even the minds of many who find they cannot contradict
it, are yet not at all delighted with it. And here lies the ad-
vantage of all those who, in these days, attempt to corrupt the
doctrine of the gospel in the whole or any part of it; for the
accommodation of it to the common notions of corrupted rea-
son, is the whole of what they design. And in the confidence
of the suffrage hereof, they not only oppose the things them-
selves, but despise the declarations of them as enthusiastical
canting. And by nothing do they more prevail themselves,
than by a pretence of reducing all things to reason, and a con-
tempt of what they oppose, as unintelligible fanaticism. But
I am not more satisfied in any thing of the most uncontrolla-
ble evidence, than that the understanding of these men is no
just measure or standard of spiritual truth. Wherefore, not-
withstanding all this fierceness and scorn, with the pretended
advantages which some think they have made by traducing
expressions in the writings of some men, which are perhaps
improper, perhaps only not suited to their own genius and
capacity in tliese things, we are not to be "ashamed of the
gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeih."
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
57
Of this repugnancy to the mystery of the wisdom and
grace of God in Christ, and the foundation of its whole economy
in the distinct operations of the persons of the Holy Trinity
therein, there are two parts or branches.
I. That which would reduce the whole of it to the private
reason of men, and their own weak imperfect management
thereof This is the entire design of the Socinians. Hence,
1. The doctrine of the Trinity itself is denied, impugned,
yea derided by them, and that solely on this account. They
plead that it is incomprehensible by reason; for there is in
that doctrine, a declaration of things absolutely infinite and
eternal, which cannot be exemplified in, nor accommodated
to, things finite and temporal. This is the substance of all
tiieir pleas against the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that which
gives a seeming life and sprightly vigour to their objections
against it ; wherein yet under the pretence of the use and
exercise of reason, they fall, and resolve all their reasonings
into the most absurd and irrational principles that ever the
minds of men were besotted with. For unless you will grant
them that what is above their reason is therefore contradictory
to true reason; that what is infinite and eternal is perfectly
comprehensible, and in all its concerns and respects to be
accounted for; that what cannot be in things finite and of a
separate existence, cannot be in things infinite whose being
and existence can be but one, with other such irrational, yea
brutish imaginations, all the arguments of these pretended nieti
of reason against the Trinity, become like chaff that every
breath of wind will blow away. Hereon they must, as they
do, deny the distinct operations of any persons in the God-
head in the dispensation of the mystery of grace. For if there
are no such distinct persons, there can be no such distinct
operations. Now as upon a denial of these things no one
article of faith can be rightly understood, nor any one duty of
obedience be performed to God in an acceptable manner, so
in particular, we grant that the doctrine of justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, cannot stand.
2. On the same ground the incarnation of the .Son of God is
rejected as atoirwv atonotatov, the most absurd conception that
ever befel the minds of men. Now it is to no purpose to dispute
with men so persuaded about justification. Yea we will freely
acknowledge that all things we believe about it are no better
than " old wives' tales," if the incarnation of the Son of God
be so also. For I can as well understand how he who is a
58
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
mere man, however exalted, dignified and glorified, can exer-
cise a spiritual rule in and over the hearts, consciences, and
thoughts of all the men in the world, being intimately knowing
of and present to them all equally at all times, (which is
another of their fopperies) as how the righteousness and obe-
dience of one should be esteemed the righteousness of all that
believe, if that one be no more than a man, if he be not
acknowledged to be the Son of God incarnate.
Whilst the minds of men are prepossessed with such pre-
judices, nay unless they firmly assent to the truth in these
foundations of it, it is impossible to convince them of the truth
and necessity of that justification of a sinner which is revealed
in the gospel. Allow the Lord Christ to be no other per-
son but what they believe him to be, and I will grant there
can be no other way of justification than what they declare ;
though I cannot believe that ever any sinner will be justified
thereby. These are the issues of an obstinate refusal to give
way to the introduction of the mystery of God and his grace,
into the way of salvation and our relation to him.
And he who would desire an instance of the fertihty of
men's inventions in forging and coining objections against
heavenly mysteries in the justification of the sovereignty of
their own reason as to what belongs to our relation to God,
need go no further than the writings of these men against the
Trinity and incarnation of the Eternal Word. For this is their
fundamental rule in things divine and doctrines of religion,
that not what the Scripture saith is therefore to be accounted
true, although it seems repugnant to any reasonings of ours,
or is above what we can comprehend; but what seems repug-
nant to our reason, let the words of the Scripture be what they
will, that that we must conclude that the Scripture does not
say, though it seems never so expressly so to do.* " Where-
fore because the Scripture aflirms both these" (that is the
efficacy of God's grace and the freedom of our wills) " we
cannot conclude from thence, that they are not repugnant;
but because these things are repugnant to one another,
we must determine, that one of them is not spoken in the
Scripture ;" no, it seems, let it say what it will. This is the
handsomest way they can take in advancing their own reason
above the Scripture, which yet savours of intolerable pre-
* Itaque non quia utrumque scriptura dicat, propterea haec inter se non pugnare
concludendum est; sed potius quia htEc inter se pugnant, ideo alterutrum a scrip-
tura non dici statuendum est. Schlicting. ad Meisn. def. Socin. p. 102.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 59
sumption. So Socinus himself speaking of the satisfaction
of Christ, says in plain terms ;* " For my part if this (doctrine)
were extant and written in the holy Scripture, not once but
often, yet would I not therefore believe it to be so as you think;
for whereas it can by no means be so" (whatever the Scripture
saith) " I would as I do with others in other places, make use
of some less incommodious interpretation, whereby I would
draw a sense out of the words that should be consistent with
itself." And how he would do this he declares a little before;
he would "explain the words into another sense than what
they sound or propose, even by unusual tropes." And indeed
such uncouth tropes does he apply as so many engines and
machines to pervert all the divine testimonies concerning our re-
demption, reconciliation, and justification by the blood of Christ.
Having therefore fixed this as their rule, constantly to prefer
their own reason above the express words of the Scripture,
which must therefore by one means or other be so perverted
or wrested to be made compliant therewith, it is endless lo
trace them in their multiplied objections against the holy mys-
teries, all resolved into this one principle, that their reason
cannot comprehend them, and does not approve of them.
And if any man would have an especial instance of the serpen-
tine wits of men, winding themselves from under the power of
conviction by the spiritual light of truth, or at least endeavour-
ing so to do, let him read the comments of the Jewish Rabbins
on Isaiah liii. and of the Socinians on the beginning of the
Gospel of John.
Secondly, The second branch of this repugnancy springsfrom
the want of a due comprehension of that harmony which is in
the mystery of grace, and between all the parts of it. This
comprehension is the principal effect of that wisdom which
believers are taught by the Holy Ghost. For our understand-
ing of the wisdom of God in a mystery is neither an art nor a
science, whether purely speculative or more practical, but a
spiritual wisdom. And this spiritual wisdom is such as under-
stands and apprehends things, not so much, or not only in the
notion of them, as in their power, reality, and efficacy towards
* Ego qnidem etiamsi non semel sed saepius id in sacris monumentis scriptum
extaret, non idcirco tamen ita prorsus rem se liabere crederem, ut vos opinamini ;
cum enim id omnino fieri non possit, non secus atque in multis aliis Scripturae
Testimoniis, una cum ceRteris omnibus facio; aliqua qute minus incommoda vide-
retur, interpretatione adhibita, eum sensum ex ejusmodi verbis elicerem qui sibi
constaret.
60 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. *
their proper ends. And therefore ahhoiigh it may be that
very few, unless they be learned, judicious, and diligent in the
use of means of all sorts, attain to it clearly and distinctly in
the doctrinal notions of it; yet are all true believers, yea the
meanest of them, directed and enabled by the Holy Spirit as
to their own practice and duty, to act suitably to a compre-
hension of this harmony, according to the promise that " they
shall be all taught of God." Hence those things which appear
to others contradictory and inconsistent one with another, so
that they are forced to offer violence to the Scripture and their
own experience in the rejection of the one or other of them,
are reconciled in their minds, and made mutually useful or
helpful, to one another, in the whole course of their obedience.
But these things must be further spoken to.
Such a harmony as that intended, there is in the whole
mystery of God. For it is the most curious effect and product
of divine wisdom ; and it is no impeachment of the truth of it,
that it is not discernible by human reason. A full compre-
hension of it no creature can in this world arise to. Only m
the contemplation of faith, we may arrive to such an under-
standing admiration of it, as shall enable us to give glory to
God, and to make use of all the parts of it in practice as we
have occasion. Concerning it the holy man mentioned before
cried out, w avi^tzvi-o.rsT's 5?;/it«pyta5 ; " 0 uusearchable coutrivauce
and operation !" and so is it expressed by the apostle, as that
which has an unfathomable depth of wisdom in it, S jSaOo?
TfKovtov, &c. " 0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom
and knowledge of God ; how unsearchable are his ways and
his judgments past finding out," Rom. ii. 33, 34, 35, 36. See
to the same purpose, Eph. iii. S, 9, 10.
There is a harmony, a suitableness of one thing to another
in all the works of creation. Yet we see that it is not perfectly
nor absolutely discoverable to the wisest and most diligent of
men. How far are they from an agreement about the order
and motions of the heavenly bodies, of the sympathies and
qualities of sundry things here below, in the relation of causality
and efficiency between one thing and another. The new
discoveries made concerning any of them, only evidence how
far men are from a just and perfect comprehension of them.
Yet such a universal harmony there is in all the parts of nature
and its operations, that nothing in its proper station and ope-
ration is destructively contradictory either to the whole, or
any part of it, but every thing contributes to the preservation
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 61
and use of the universe. But although this harmony be not
absolutely comprehensible by any, yet do all living creatures,
who follow the conduct or instinct of nature, make use of it,
and live upon it, and without it neither their being could be
preserved, nor their operations continued.
But in the mystery of God and his grace, the harmony and
suitableness of one thing to another, with their tendency to
the same end, is incomparably more excellent and glorious
than that which is seen in nature or the works of it. For
whereas God made all things at first in wisdom, yet is the
new creation of all things by Jesus Christ, ascribed peculiarly
to the riches, stores, and treasures of that infinite wisdom.
Neither can any discern it unless they are taught of God, for
it is only spiritually discerned. But yet is it by the most
despised. Some seem to think that there is no great wisdom
in it, and some that no great wisdom is required to the com-
prehension of it. Few think it worth the while to spend half
that time in prayer, in meditation, in the exercise of self denial,
mortification and holy obedience, doing the will of Christ that
they may know of his word to the attaining of a due compre-
hension of the mystery of godliness, that some do in study,
and trial of experiments, who design to excel in natural or
mathematical sciences. Wherefore there are three things
evident herein.
1. That such a harmony there is in all the parts of the
mystery of God, wherein all the blessed properties of the
divine nature are glorified, our duty in all instances is directed
and engaged, our salvation in the way of obedience secured,
and Christ as the end of all exalted. Wherefore we are not
only to consider and know the several parts of the doctrine of
spiritual truth, but their relation also one to another, their
consistency one with another in practice, and their mutual
furtherance of one another to their common end. And a
disorder in our apprehensions about any part of that, whose
beauty and use arises from its harmony, gives some confusion
of mind with respect to the whole.
2. That to a comprehension of this harmony in a due
measure, it is necessary that we be "taught of God," without
which we can never be wise in the knowledge of the mystery
of his grace. And herein ought we to place the principal
part of our diligence in our inquiries into the truths of the
gospel.
3. All those who are taught of God to know his will, unless
6
62 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
it be when their minds are disordered by prejudices, false
opinions or temptations, have an experience in themselves and
their own practical obedience, of the consistency of all parts of
the mystery of God's grace and truth in Christ among them-
selves, of their spiritual harmony and cogent tendency to the
same end. The introduction of the grace of Christ into our
relation to God, makes no confusion or disorder in their minds,
by the conflict of the principles of natural reason, with respect
to our first relation to God, and those of grace with respect to
that whereto we are renewed.
From the want of a due comprehension of this divine har-
mony it is, that the minds of men are filled with imaginations
of an inconsistency between the most important parts of the
mystery of the gospel, from whence the confusions that are at
this day in Christian religion proceed.
Thus the Socinians can see no consistency between the
grcKe or love of God, and the satisfaction of Christ, but
imagine if the one of them be admitted, the other must be
excluded out of our religion. Wherefore they prmcipally
oppose the latter under a pretence of asserting and vindicating
the former. And where these things are expressly conjoined
in the same proposition of faith ; as where it is said that we
are "justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemp-
tion that is in Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood," as Rom. iii. 24, 25,
they will offer violence to common sense and reason, rather
than not disturb that harmony which they cannot understand.
For although it be plainly affirmed to be a redemption by his
blood, as he is a propitiation, as his blood was a ransom or
price of redemption, yet they will contend, that it is only
metaphorical, a mere deliverance by power, like that of the
Israelites by Moses. But these things are clearly stated in
the gospel, and therefore not only consistent, but such as that
the one cannot subsist without the other. Nor is there any
mention of any especial love or grace of God to sinners, but
with respect to the satisfaction of Christ as the means of the
communication of all their effects to them. See John iii. 16. ;
Rom. iii. 23— 25,viii. 30 — 33.;2Cor.v. 19 — 21. ; Ephes. i. 7. &c.
In like manner, they can see no consistency between the
satisfaction of Christ, and the necessity of holiness or obe-
dience in them that believe. Hence they continually clamour,
that by our doctrine of the mediation of Christ, we overthrow
all obligations to a holy life. And by their sophistical reason-
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 63
ings to this purpose, they prevail with many to embrace their
delusions, who have not a spiritual experience to confront
their sophistry with. But as the testimony of the Scripture
lies expressly against them, so those who truly believe, and
have real experience of the influence of that truth upon the
life of God, and how impossible it is to yield any acceptable
obedience herein without respect thereto, are secured from
their snares.
These and the like imaginations arise from the unwilling-
ness of men to admit of the introduction of the mystery of
grace, into our relation to God. For suppose us to stand before
God on the old constitution of the covenant of creation, which
alone natural reason likes and comprehends, and we acknow-
ledge these things to be inconsistent. But the mystery of the
wisdom and grace of God in Christ, cannot stand without
them both.
So likewise God's efficacious grace in the conversion of
sinners, and the exercise of the faculties of their minds in a
way of diUy are asserted as contradictory and inconsistent.
And although they seem both to be positively and frequently
declared in the Scripture, yet say these men, their consistency
being repugnant to their reason, let the Scripture say what it
will, yet it is to be said by us, that the Scripture does not assert
one of them. And this is from the same cause; men cannot
in their wisdom see it possible that the mystery of God's grace
should be introduced into our relation and obedience to God.
Hence have many ages of the church, especially the last of
them, been filled with endless disputes, in opposition to the
grace of God, or to accommodate the conceptions of it, to the
niterests of corrupted reason.
But there is no instance more pregnant to this purpose than
that under our present consideration. Free justification through
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is cried out
against as inconsistent with a necessity of personal holiness
and obedience ; and because the Socinians insist principally
on this pretence, it shall be fully and diligently considered
apart, and that holiness, which, without it, they and others
deriving from them, pretend to, shall be tried by the unerring
rule.
Wherefore I desire it may be observed that in pleading for
this doctrine, we do it as a principal part of the introduction
of grace into our whole relation to God. Hence we grant :
1. That it is unsuited, yea foolish, and as some speak child-
64 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
ish, to the principles of unenlightened and unsanctified reason,
or understandings of men. And this we conceive to be the
principal cause of all the oppositions that are made to it, and
all the depravations of it that the church is pestered with.
Hence are the wits of men so fertile in sophistical cavils against
it, so ready to load it with seeming absurdities, and I know
not what unsuitableness to their wondrous rational concep-
tions. And no objection can be made against it, be it ever so
trivial, but is highly applauded by those, who look on that
introduction of the mystery of grace which is above their
natural conceptions, as unintelligible folly.
2. That the necessary relation of these things one to the
other, namely, of justification by the imputation of the right-
eousness of Christ, and the necessity of our personal obedience,
will not be clearly understood nor duly improved, but by and
in the exercise of the wisdom of faith. This we grant also ;
and let who will make what advantage they can of this con-
cession. True faith has such spiritual light in it, or accom-
panying it, that it is able to receive it, and to conduct the
soul to obedience by it. Wherefore, reserving the particular
consideration hereof, to its proper place, I say in general,
1. That this relation is evident to that spiritual wisdom
whereby we are enabled doctrinally and practically to com-
prehend the harmony of the mystery of God, and the con-
sistency of all the parts of it one with another.
2. That it is made evident by the Scripture, wherein both
these things, justification through the imputation of the right-
eousness of Christ, and the necessity of our personal obedience,
are plainly asserted and declared. And we defy that rule of
the Socinians, that seeing these things are inconsistent in their
apprehension or to their reason, therefore we must say that
one of them is not taught in the Scripture; for whatever it
may appear to their reason, it does not so to ours; and we
have at least as good reason to trust to our own reason, as to
theirs. Yet, we absolutely acquiesce in neither, but in the
authority of God in the Scripture ; rejoicing only in this, that
we can set our seal to his revelations by our own experience.
For,
3. It is fully evident in the gracious conduct which the
minds of them that believe are under, even that of the " Spirit
of truth and grace," and the inclinations of that new principle
of the divine life whereby they are actuated. For although
from the remainders of sin and darkness that are in them,
THK DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 65
temptations may arise to a continuance in sin, because grace
has abounded, yet are their minds so formed and framed by
the doctrine of this grace, and the grace of this doctrine, that
the abounding of grace herein, is the principal motive to their
abounding in holiness, as we shall see afterwards.
And this we aver to be the spring of all those objections
which the adversaries of this doctrine continually endeavour
to entangle it with. As (1) If the passive righteousness (as it
is commonly called,) that is, his death and suffering be imputed
to us, there is no need nor can be, that his active righteous-
ness or the obedience of his life, should be imputed to us ; and
so on the contrary ; for both together are inconsistent. (2) That
if all sin be pardoned, there is no need of the righteousness;
and so on the contrary, if the righteousness of Christ be imputed
to us, there is no room for or need of the pardon of sin. (3) If
we believe the pardon of our sins, then are our sins pardoned
before we believe, or we are bound to believe that which is
not so. (4) If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us,
then are we esteemed to have done and suffered, what indeed
we never did nor suffered; and it is true, that if we are
esteemed ourselves to have done it, imputation is overthrown.
(5) If Christ's righteousness be imputed to us, then are we as
righteous as was Christ himself. (6) If our sins were imputed
to Christ, then was he thought to have sinned, and was a
sinner subjectively. (7) If good works be excluded from any
interest in our justification before God, then are they of no
use to our salvation. (8) That it is ridiculous to think, that
where there is no sin, there is not all the righteousness that
can be required. (9) That righteousness imputed is only a
putative or imaginary righteousness, &c.
Now, although all these and the like objections however
subtilly managed, (as Socinus boasts that he had used more
than ordinary subtility in this cause,)* are capable of plain and
clear solutions, and we shall avoid the examination of none of
them; yet at present I shall only say, that all the shades which
they cast on the minds of men, vanish and disappear before
the light of express Scripture testimonies, and the experience
of them that believe, where there is a due comprehension of
the mystery of grace in any tolerable measure.
Seventhly — There are some common prejudices that are
* In quo si subtilius aliquanto quam opus esse vidcrctur, qusdam a nobis dis-
putata sunt ; De servat. par. 4. cap. 4.
6*
66 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION,
usually pleaded against the doctrine of the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, which because they will not orderly
fall under a particular consideration in our progress, may be
briefly examined in these general previous considerations.
1. It is usually urged against it, that this imputation of the
righteousness of Christ is no where mentioned expressly in the
Scripture, This is the first objection of Bellarmine against it.*
" As yet they have not been able to find a single passage which
asserted that the righteousness of Christ was imputed to us for
righteousness ; or that we were righteous through the right-
eousness of Christ imputed to us," An objection, doubtless,
unreasonably and immodestly urged by men of his persuasion.
For, not only do they make profession of their whole faith, or
their belief of all things in matters of rehgion, in terms and
expressions no where used in the Scripture, but believe many
things also, as they say, with faith divine, not at all revealed
or contained in the Scrrpture, but drained by them out of the
traditions of the church. I do not therefore understand how
such persons can modestly manage this as an objection against
any doctrine, that the terms wherein some do express it, are
not in so many words found in the Scripture, just in that order
of one word after another as by them they are used. For
this rule may be much enlarged, and yet be kept strait enough
to exclude the principal concerns of their church out of the
confines of Christianity. Nor can I apprehend nmch more
equity in others who reflect with severity on this expression of
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as unscriptural,
as if those who make use thereof, were criminal in no small
degree; when themselves immediately in the declaration of
their own judgment, make use of such terms, distinctions and
expressions, as are so far from being in the Scripture, that it is
odds they had never been in the world, had they escaped
Aristotle's mint, or that of the schools deriving from him.
And thus although a sufficient answer has frequently enough,
if any thing can be so, been returned to this objection in Bel-
larmine, yet has one of late amongst ourselves made the trans-
lation of it into English, to be the substance of the first chap-
ter of a book about justification; though he needed not to have
given such an early intimation to whom he is beholden for the
* Hactenus, nullum omnino locum invenire potucrunt ubi legeretur Christi
Justitiam nobis imputari ad justitiam; vel nos justos esse per Christi Justitiam
nobis imputatam. Dc Justificat. lib. 2. cap. 7.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 67
greatest part of his ensuing discourse, unless it be what is taken
up in despiteful reviling of other men. For take from him
what is not his own on the one hand, and impertinent cavils at
the words and expressions of other men, with forged imputa-
tions on some of them, on the other, and his whole book will
disappear. But yet, although he affirms that none of the Pro-
testant writers who speak of the imputation of the righteous-
ness of Christ to us, (which were all of them without exception
until of late) have "precisely kept to the form of wholesome
words, but have rather swerved and varied from the language
of the Scripture," yet he will excuse them from open error,
if they intend no more thereby, but that we are made par-
takers of the benefits of the righteousness of Christ. But if they
intend that the righteousness of Christ itself is imputed to us,
(that is, so as to be our righteousness before God, whereon we
are pardoned and accepted with him, or receive the forgiveness
of sins, and a right to the heavenly inheritance) then are they
guilty of that error which makes us to be esteemed to do our-
selves what Christ did; and so on the other side, Christ to have
done what we do and did. But these things are not so. For
if we are esteemed to have done any thing in our own persons,
it cannot be imputed to us as done for us by another; as it
will appear when we shall treat of these things afterwards.
But the great and holy persons intended, are as little concerned
in the accusations or apologies of some writers, as those writers
seem to be acquainted with that learning, wisdom and judg-
ment, wherein they excelled, and the characters whereof are
so eminently conspicuous in all their writings.
But the judgment of most Protestants is not only candidly
expressed, but approved of also by Bellarmine himself in an-
other place.* " It were not absurd if any one should say that
the righteousness and merits of Christ are imputed to us, when
they are given and applied to us, as if we ourselves had satis-
fied God." And this he confirms with that saying of Ber-
nard,! " For if one died for all, then were all dead; that is to
say, that the satisfaction of one is imputed to all, as he alone
bore the sins of all." And those who will acknowledge no
* Non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam etmerita;
cum nobis donentur et applicentur; ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus. De Justif.
lib. 2. cap. 10.
t Nam si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt, ut videlicet
satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit. In-
nocent. Ad Innocent. Epist. 190.
68 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
more in this matter, but only a participation quovis modo, one
way or other, of the benefits of the obedience and righteous-
ness of Christ, wherein we have the concurrence of the Soci-
nians also, might do well as I suppose, plainly to deny all
imputation of his righteousness to us in any sense, as they do,
seeing the benefits of his righteousness cannot be said to be
imputed to us, what way soever we are made partakers of
them. For to say, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed
to us with respect to the benefits of it, when neither the right-
eousness itself is imputed to us, nor can the benefits of it be
imputed to us, as we shall see afterwards, ministers great oc-
casion of much needless variance and contests. Neither do I
know any reason why men should seek countenance to this
doctrine under such an expression as themselves reflect upon
as unscriptural, if they be contented that their minds and sense
should be clearly understood and apprehended. For truth
needs no subterfuges.
The Socinians now principally make use of this objection.
For finding the whole Church of God in the use of sundry ex-
pressions, in the declaration of the most important truths of
the gospel, that are not literally contained in the Scripture,
they hoped for an advantage from thence in their opposition
to the things themselves. Such are the terms of the Trinity,
the incarnation, satisfaction and merit of Christ, as this also
of the imputation of his righteousness. How little they have
prevailed in the other instances has been sufficiently manifested
by them with whom they have had to do. But as to that part
of this objection which concerns the imputation of the right-
eousness of Christ to believers, those by whom it is asserted say:
1. That it is the thing alone intended which they plead for.
If that be not contained in the Scripture, if it be not plainly
taught and confirmed therein, they will speedily relinquish it.
But if they can prove that the doctrine which they intend in
this expression, and which is thereby plainly declared to the
understandings of men, is a divine truth, sufficiently witnessed
to in the Scripture, then is this expression of it reductively
Scriptural, and the truth itself so expressed a divine verity. To
deny this, is to take away all use of the interpretation of the
Scripture; and to overthrow the ministry of the church. This
therefore is to be alone inquired into.
2. They say, the same thing is taught and' expressed in the
Scripture, in phrases equivalent. For it affirms that " by the
obedience of One," (that is Christ) " shall many be made right-
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 69
eous," Rom. v. 19. And that we are made righteous by the
imputation of righteousness to us. " Blessed is the man unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works," chap, iv,
6. And if we are made righteous by the imputation of right-
eousness to us, that obedience or righteousness, wliereby we
are made righteous, is imputed to us. And they will be con-
tent with this expression of this doctrine. That the obedience
of Christ, whereby we are made righteous, is the righteousness
that God imputes to us. Wherefore this objection is of no force
to disadvantage the truth pleaded for.
3. Socinus objects in particular against this doctrine of jus-
tification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and
of his satisfaction, that there is nothing said of it in the Evan-
gelists, nor in the report of the sermons of Christ to the people,
no, nor yet in those of his private discourses with his disciples.
And he urges it vehemently and at large, against the whole of
the expiation of sin by his death. Ai^sd as it is easy, malis
i7iventis pejora acldere, this notion of his is not only made use
of and pressed at large by one among ourselves, but improved
also by a dangerous comparison between the writings of the
Evangelists and the other writings of the New Testament.
For to enforce this argument, that the histories of the gospel
wherein the sermons of Christ are recorded, make no mention
of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as in his judg-
ment they do not, nor of his satisfaction, or merit or expiation
of sin, or of redemption by his death, as they do not in the
judgment of Socinus, it is added by him, that for his part he
is " apt to admire our Saviour's sermons, who was the author
of our religion, before the writings of the Apostles, though in-
spired men." To which many dangerous insinuations and
reflections on the writings of St. Paul, contrary to the faith
and sense of the church in all ages, are subjoined.
But this boldness is not only unwarrantable, but to be ab-
horred. What place of Scripture, what ecclesiastical tradition,
what single precedent of any one sober Christian writer, what
theological reason, will countenance a man in making the com-
parison mentioned, and so determining thereon? Such juve-
nile boldness, such want of a due apprehension and under-
standing of the nature of Divine inspirations, with the order
and design of the writing of the New Testament, which are
the springs of this precipitate censure, ought to be reflected on.
At present, to remove this pretence out of our way, it may be
observed,
70
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
1. That what the Lord Christ taught his disciples in his per-
sonal ministry on the earth, was suited to that economy of the
church, which was antecedent to his death and resurrection.
Nothing did he withhold from them, that was needful to their
faith, obedience and consolation in that state. Many things
he instructed them in, out of the Scripture, many new revela-
tions he made to them, and many times did he occasionally
instruct and rectify their judgments. Howbeit he made no
clear distinct revelation of those sacred mysteries to them,
which are peculiar to the faith of the New Testament, nor
were to be distinctly apprehended before his death and resur-
rection.
2. What the Lord Christ revealed afterwards by his Spirit
to the Apostles, was no less immediately from himself, than
was the truth which he spoke to them with his own mouth
in the days of his flesh. An apprehension to the contrary is
destructive of Christianity. The epistles of the Apostles are
no less Christ's sermons, than that which he delivered on the
mount. Wherefore,
3. Neither in the things themselves, nor in the way of their
delivery or revelation, is there any advantage of the one sort
of writings above the other. The things written in the epistles
proceed from the same wisdom, the same grace, the same love,
with the things which lie spoke with his own mouth in the
days of his flesh, and are of the same Divine veracity, author-
ity and etficacy. The revelation which he made by his Spirit,
is no less divine and immediate from himself, than what he
spoke to his disciples on the earth. To distinguish between
these things on any of these accounts, is intolerable folly.
4. The writings of the Evangelists do not contain the whole
of all the instructions which the Lord Christ gave to his disci-
ples personally on earth. For he was " seen of them after his
resurrection forty days, and spoke with them of the things per-
taining to the kingdom of God," Acts i. 3. And yet nothing
hereof is recorded in their writings, but only some few occa-
sional speeches. Nor had he given them before a clear and
distinct understanding of those things which were delivered
concerning his death and resurrection in the Old Testament, as
is plainly declared, Luke 24 — 27. For it was not necessary
for them in that state wherein they were. Wherefore,
5. As to the extent of Divine revelations objectively, those
which he granted by his Spirit to his Apostles after his ascen-
sion, were beyond those which he personally taught them, so
TKE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 71
far as they are recorded in the writings of the Evangelists.
For he told them plainly, not long before his death, that he
had many things to say to them, which then they could not
bear, John xvi. 12. And for the knowledge of those things,
he refers them to the coming of the Spirit to make revelation
of them from himself, in the next words : " Howbeit when He^
the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth;
for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear,
that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come. He
shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and show it unto
you," ver. 13, 14. And on this account he had told them be-
fore, that it was expedient for them that he should go away,
that the Holy Spirit might come unto them, whom he would
send from the Father, ver. 7. Hereunto he referred the full
and clear manifestation of the mysteries of the gospel. So
false, as well as dangerous and scandalous, are those insinua-
tions of Socinus and his followers.
Secondly, The writings of the Evangelists are full to their
proper ends and purposes. These were to record the gene-
alogy, conception, birth, acts, miracles and teachings of our
Saviour, so far as to evince him to be the true only promised
Messiah. So he testifies who wrote the last of them. "Many
other signs truly did Jesus, which are not written in this hoj^
but these are written that ye miglit believe that Jesus is
Christ, the Son of God," John xx. 30, 31. To this end every
thing is recorded by them that is needful to the ingenerating
and establishment of faith. Upon this confirmation, all things
declared in the Old Testament concerning him, all that was
taught in types and sacrifices, became the object of faith in
that sense wherein tliey were interpreted in the accomplish-
ment: and that in them this doctrine was before revealed,
shall be proved afterwards. It is therefore no wonder if some
things, and those of the highest importance, should be declared
more fully in other writings of the New Testament, than they
are in those of the Evangelists.
Thirdly, The pretence itself is wholly false. For there are
as many pregnant testimonies given to this truth in one alone
of the Evangelists, as in any other book of the New Testament;
namely, in the book of John. I shall refer to some of them
which will be pleaded in their proper place, John i. 12, 17, 19.
iii. 14—18. 36. V. 24.
But we may pass this by, as one of those inventions con-
cerning which Socinus boasts in his epistle to Michael Vajo-
72
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
ditus, that his writings were " esteemed by many for the
singularity of the things asserted in them."
Fourthly, The difference that has been among Protestant
writers about this doctrine is pleaded to the prejudice of it.
Osiander in the entrance of the Reformation fell into a vain
imagination, that we were justified or made righteous with
the essential righteousness of God, communicated to us by
Jesus Christ. And whereas he was opposed herein with some
severity by the most learned persons of those days, to coun-
tenance himself in his singularity he pretended that there
were twenty different opinions among the Protestants them-
selves, about the formal cause of our justification before God.
This was quickly laid hold of by them of the Roman church,
and is urged as a prejudice against the whole doctrine, by
Bellarmine, Vasquez, and others. But the vanity of this pre-
tence of his has been sufficiently discovered ; and Bellarmine
himself could fancy but four opinions among them, that seemed
to be different from one another, reckoning that of Osiander
for one. But whereas he knew that the imagination of
Osiander was exploded by them all, the other three that he
mentions are indeed but distinct parts of the same entire
doctrine. Wherefore until of late it might be truly said, that
the faith anrl dnr.tnnft qf all Protestants was in this article
eruireiy the same. For however they differed in the way,
manner, and methods of its declaration, and too many private
men were addicted to definitions and descriptions of their own,
under pretence of logical accuracy in teaching, which gave an
appearance of some contradiction among them, yet in this they
generally agreed, that it is the righteousness of Christ and not
our own, on the account whereof we receive the pardon of sin,
acceptance with God, are declared righteous by the gospel,
and have a right and title to the heavenly inheritance. Hereon,
I sa5^ they were generally agreed, first against the Papists,
and afterwards against the Socinians; and where this is granted,
I will not contend with any man about his way of declaring
the doctrine of it.
And that I may add it by the way, we have herein the
concurrence of the fathers of the primitive church. For
although by justification, following the etymology of the Latin
word, they understood the making us righteous with internal
personal righteousness, at least some of them did so, as Austin
in particular, yet that we are pardoned and accepted with
God on any other account, but that of the righteousness of
THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION.
73
Christ, they believed not. And whereas, especially in their
controversy with the Pelagians after the rising of that heresy,
they plead vehemently that we are made righteous by the
grace of God, changing our hearts and natures, and creating
in us a principle of spiritual life and holiness, and not by the
endeavours of our own free will, or works performed in the
strength thereof, their words and expressions have been abused
contrary to their intention and design.
For we wholly concur with them, and subscribe to all that
they dispute about the making of us personally righteous and
holy, by the effectual grace of God, against all merit of works
and operations of our own free will, (our sanctification being
every way as much of grace, as our justification properly so
called) and that in opposition to the common doctrine of the
Roman church about the same matter ; only they call our
being made inherently and personally righteous by grace,
sometimes by the name of justification which we do not.
And this is laid hold of as an advantage by those of the
Roman church who do not concur with them in the way and
manner whereby we are so made righteous. But whereas by
our justification before God, we intend only that righteousness
whereon our sins are pardoned, wherewith we are made
righteous in his sight, or for which we are accepted as righteous
before him, it will be hard to find any of them assigning it to
any other causes than the Protestants do. So it is fallen out,
that what they design to prove, we entirely comply with them
in; but the way and manner whereby they prove it, is made
use of by the Papists to another end, which they intended not.
But as to the way and manner of the declaration of this
doctrine among Protestants themselves, there ever was some
variety and difference in expressions. Nor will it be other-
wise whilst the abilities and capacities of men, whether in the
conceiving of things of this nature, or in the expression of
their conceptions, are so various as they are. And it is ac-
knowledged that these differences of late have had by some
as much weight laid upon them, as the substance of the doctrine
generally agreed in. Hence some have composed entire books
consisting almost of nothing, but impertinent cavils at other
men's words and expressions. But these things proceed from
the weakness of some men, and other vicious habits of their
minds, and do not belong to the cause itself. And such per-
i sons, as for me, may write as they do, and fight on until they
are weary. Neither has the multiplication of questions, and
7
74 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
the curious discussions of them in the handling of this doc-
trine, wherein nothing ought to be diligently insisted on, but
what is directive of our practice, been of much use to the truth
itself, though it has not been directly opposed in them.
That which is of real difference among persons who agree
in the substance of the doctrine may be reduced to a very few
heads. As (1) There is something of this kind about the nature
of faith whereby we are justified, with its proper object in
justifying, and its use in justification. And an instance we
have herein, not only of the weakness of our intellects in the
apprehension of spiritual things, but also of the remainders of
confusion and disorder in our minds, at least how true it is that
we " know only in part," and "prophesy only in part," whilst
we are in this life. For whereas this faith is an act of our
minds, put forth in the way of duty to God, yet many by whom
it is sincerely exercised, and that continually, are not agreed
either in the nature or proper object of it. Yet is there no
doubt but that some of them who differ amongst themselves
about these things, have delivered their minds free from the
prepossession of prejudices and notions derived from other
artificial reasonings imposed on them, and do really express
their own conceptions as to the best and utmost of their expe-
rience. And notwithstanding this diff'erence, they do yet all
of them please God in the exercise of faith as it is their duty,
and have such respect to its proper object, as secures both
their justification and salvation. And if we cannot on this
consideration bear with, and forbear one another in our differ-
ent conceptions, and expressions of those conceptions about
these things, it is a sign we have a great mind to be conten-
tious, and that our confidences are built on very weak founda-
tions. For my part I had much rather my lot should be found
among them who do really "believe with the heart unto right-
eousness," though they are not able to give a tolerable defi-
nition of faith to others, than among them who can endlessly
dispute about it with seeming accuracy and skill, but are
negligent in the exercise of it as their own diUy. Wherefore
some things shall be briefly spoken of in this matter, to declare
my own apprehensions of the things mentioned without the
least design to contradict or oppose the conceptions of others.
2. There has been a controversy more directly stated among
some learned divines of the reformed churches, (for the Luthe-
rans are unanimous on the one side) about the righteousness
of Christ that is said to be imputed to us. For some would
\
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 75
have this to be only his sutTering of death, and the satisfaction
which he made for sin thereby, and others include therein ihe
obedience of his Hfe also. The occasion, original, and progress
of this controversy, the persons by whom it has been managed,
with the writings wherein it is so. and the various ways that
have been endeavoured for its reconciliation, are sufficiently
known to all, who have inquired into these things. Neither
shall I engage herein, in the way of controversy or in opposi-
tion to others, though I shall freely declare my own judgment
in it, so far as the consideration of the righteousness of Christ
under this distinction is inseparable from the substance of the
truth itself which I plead for.
3. Some difference there has been also, whether the right-
eousness of Christ imputed to us, or the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, may be said to be the formal cause of
our justification before God, wherein there appears some
variety of expression among learned men, who have handled
this subject in the way of controversy with the Papists. The
true occasion of the differences about this expression has been
this and no other. Those of the Roman church constantly
assert, that the righteousness whereby we are righteous before
God, is the formal cause of our justification. And this right-
eousness, they say, is our own inherent personal righteousness,
and not the righteousnes of Christ imputed to us. Wherefore
they treat of this whole controversy, namely, what is the right-
eousness on the account whereof we are accepted with God,
or justified, under the name of the formal cause of justification,
which is the subject of the second book of Bellarmine concern-
ing justification. In opposition to them, some Protestants
contending that the righteousness wherewith we are esteemed
righteous before God, and accepted with him, is the right-
eousness of Christ, imputed to us, and not our own inherent,
imperfect personal righteousness, have done it under this
mquiry, namely, what is the formal cause of our justifica-
tion? which some have said to be the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, some the righteousness of Christ im-
puted. But what they designed herein was not to resolve
this controversy into a philosophical inquiry about the na-
ture of a formal cause, but only to prove that that truly
belonged to the righteousness of Christ in our justification,
which the Papists ascribed to our own, under that name.
That there is an habitual infused habit of grace which is
the formal cause of our personal inherent righteousness they
76 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
grant. But they all deny that God pardons our sins, and jus-
tifies our persons with respect to this righteousness as the
formal cause thereof. Nay they deny that in the justification
of a sinner there either is, or can be any inherent formal cause
of it. And what they mean by a formal cause in our justifica-
tion, is only that which gives the denomination to the subject,
as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ does to a person
that he is justified.
Wherefore notwithstanding the differences that have been
among some in the various expression of their conceptions, the
substance of the doctrine of the reformed churches is by them
agreed upon and retained entire. For they all agree that God
justifies no sinner, absolves him not from guilt, nor declares
him righteous, so as to have a title to the heavenly inheritance,
but with respect to a true and perfect righteousness; as also
that this righteousness is truly the righteousness of him that is
so justified. That this righteousness becomes ours by God's
free grace and donation, the way on our part whereby we
come to be really and effectually interested therein, being faith
alone: and that this is the perfect obedience or righteousness
of Christ imputed to us; — these things, as they shall be after-
wards distinctly explained, contain the whole of that truth,
whose explanation and confirmation is the design of the ensu-
ing discourse. And because those by whom this doctrine in
the substance of it, is of late impugned, derive more from the
Socinians than the Papists, and make a nearer approach to
their principles, I shall chiefly insist on the examitiation of
those original authors, by whom their notions were first coined,
and whose weapons they make us of in their defence.
Eighthly, To close these previous discourses, it is worthy
our consideration what weight was laid on this doctrine of jus-
tification at the first Reformation, and what influence it had
upon the whole work thereof. However the minds of men may
be changed as to sundry doctrines of faith among us, yet none
can justly own the name of Protestant, but he must highly
value the first Reformation. And they cannot well do other-
wise, whose present even temporal advantages are resolved
thereinto. However I intend none but such as own an espe-
cial presence and guidance of God with those who were emi-
nently and successfully employed therein. Such persons can-
not but grant that their faith in this matter, and the concur-
rence of their thoughts about its importance, are worthy con-
sideration.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 77
Now it is known, that the doctrine of justification gave the
first occasion to the whole work of Reformation, and was the
aiain hinge whereon it turned. This those mentioned declared
to be articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesise, " an article by
which the church stands or falls;" and that the vindication
thereof alone, deserved all the pains that was taken in the
whole endeavour of reformation. But things are now, and
that by virtue of their doctrine herein, much changed in the
world, though it be not so understood or acknowledged. In
general no small benefit redounded to the world by the Refor-
mation, even among them by whom it was not, nor is received,
though many bluster with contrary pretensions. For all the
evils which have accidentally ensued thereon, arising most of
them from the corrupt passions and interests of them by whom
it has been opposed, are usually ascribed to it; and all the light,
liberty, and benefit of the minds of men which it has intro-
duced, are ascribed to other causes. But this may be signally
observed with respect to the doctrine of justification, with the
causes and effects of its discovery and vindication. For the
first reformers found their own, and the consciences of other
men, so immersed in darkness, so pressed and harassed with
fears, terrors, and disquietnients under the power of it, and so
destitute of any steady guidance into the ways of peace with
God, as that with all diligence (like persons sensible that herein
their spiritual and eternal interest was concerned) they made
their inquiries after the truth in this matter, which they knew
must be the only means of their deliverance. All men in those
days were either kept in bondage under endless fears and
anxieties of mind upon the convictions of sin, or sent for relief
to indulgences, priestly pardons, penances, pilgrimages, satis-
factory works of their own, and supererogatory of others, or
kept under chains of darkness for purgatory unto the last day.
Now he is no way able to compare things past and present,
who sees not how great an alteration is made in these things
even in the Papal church. For before the Reformation, where-
by the light of the gospel, especially in this doctrine of justifi-
cation, was diffused among men, and shone even into their
minds who never comprehended nor received it, the whole
almost of religion among them was taken up with and confined
to these things. And to instigate men to an abounding sedu-
lity in the observation of them, their minds were stuffed with .
traditions and stories of visions, ap})aritiong, frightful spirits,
and other imaginations that poor mortals are apt to be amazed
7*
78
THE DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION.
with, and which their restless disquietments gave countenance
to. These were the principal objects of their creed, and mat-
ter of their religious conversation. That very church itself is
comparatively at ease from these things, in comparison with
what it was before the Reformation; though so much of them
is still retained, as to blind the eyes of men from discerning the
necessity as well as the truth of the evangelical doctrine of jus-
tification.
It is fallen out herein not much otherwise than it did at the
first entrance of Christianity into the world. For there was an
emanation of light and truth from the gospel which affected
the minds of men, by whom yet the whole of it in its general
design, was opposed and persecuted. For from thence the
very vulgar sort of men came to have better apprehensions and
notions of God and his properties, or the original and rule of
the universe, than they had arrived to in the midnight of their
paganism. And a sort of learned speculative men there were,
who by virtue of that light of truth which sprung from the
gospel, and was now diffused into the minds of men, reformed
and improved the old philosophy, discarding many of those
falsehoods and impertinences wherewith it had been encum-
bered. But when this was done, they still maintained their
cause on the old principles of the philosophers, and indeed
their opposition to the gospel was far more plausible and plead-
able than it was before. For after they had discarded the gross
conceptions of the common sort about the divine nature and
rule, and had blended the light of truth which broke forth in
the Christian religion with their own philosophical notions,
they made a vigorous attempt for the reinforcement of hea-
thenism against the main design of the gospel. And things
have not, as I said, fallen out much otherwise in the Reforma-
tion. For as by the light of truth which therein broke forth,
the consciences of even the vulgar sort are in some measure
freed from those childish terrors which they were before in
bondage to; so those who are learned have been enabled to
reduce the opinions and practices of their church, into a more
defensible posture, and make their opposition to the truths of
the gospel more plausible than they formerly were. Yea that
doctrine which in the way of its teaching and practice among
them, as also in its effects on the consciences of men, was so
horrid as to drive innumerable persons from their communion
in that and other things also, is now in the new representation
of it, with the artificial covering provided for its former efl'ects
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 79
in practice, thought an argument meet to be pleaded for a re-
turn to its entire communion.
But to root out the superstitions mentioned from the minds
of men, to communicate to them the knowledge of the right-
eousness of God which is revealed from faith to laith, and there-
by to deliver them from their bondage, fears, and distress, di-
recting convinced sinners to the only way of solid peace with
God, did the first reformers labour so diligently in the declara-
tion and vindication of the evangelical doctrine of justification;
and God was with them. And it is worth our consideration,
whether we should, on every cavil and sophism of men not so
taught, not so employed, not so tried, not so owned of God as
they were, and in whose writings there do not appear such
characters of wisdom, sound judgment, and deep experience
as in theirs, easily part with that doctrine of truth, wherein
alone they found peace to their own souls, and whereby they
were instrumental to give liberty and peace with God to the
souls and consciences of others innumerable, accompanied with
the visible effects of holiness of life, and fruilfulness in the
works of righteousness, to the praise of God by Jesus Christ.
In my judgment, Luther spake the truth when he said;
arnisso articulo Justificationis, simiil aniissa est tola doc-
trina Christiana. " The loss of the article of Justificatio
volves the loss of the whole Christian doctrine." And I
he had not been a true prophet, when he foretold that in
following ages the doctrine hereof would be again obscured;
the causes whereof I have elsewhere inquired into.
Some late writers, indeed, among the Protestants, have en-
deavoured to reduce the controversy about justification with
the Papists, to an appearance of a far less real difference, than
is usually judged to be in it. And a good work it is, no doubt,
to pare off all unnecessary occasions of debate and differences
in religion, provided we go not so near the quick, as to let out
any of its vital spirits. The way taken herein is to proceed
upon some concessions of the most sober among the Papists, in
their ascriptions to grace and the merit of Christ on the one
side; and the express judgment of the Protestants variously
delivered, of the necessity of good works to them that are jus-
tified. Besides it appears that in different expressions which
either pa.rty adhere to, as it were by tradition, the same things
are indeed intended. Among those who have laboured in this
kind, Ludovicus le Blanc, for his perspicuity and plainness,
his moderation, and freedom from a contentious frame of spirit,
/
z uoc-
)n, in- I
L wish f
in the/
80
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
\
is almost alone worthy to be read. He is like the ghost of
Tiresias in this matter. But I must needs say, that I have not
seen the effect that might be desired of any such undertaking.
For when each party comes to the interpretation of their own
concessions, which is in common justice to be allowed to them,
and which they will be sure to do in compliance with their
judgment, in the substance of the doctrine wherein the main
stress of the difference lies, the distance and breach continue as
wide as ever they were. Nor is there the least ground towards
peace obtained by any of our condescensions or compliances
herein. For unless we can come up entirely to the decrees
and canons of the council of Trent, wherein the doctrine of the
Old and New Testament is anathematized, they will make no
other use of any men's compliances, but only to increase the
clamour of differences among ourselves. I mention nothing of
this nature to hinder any man from granting whatever he can
or pleases to them, without the prejudice of the substance of
truths professed in the Protestant churches; but only to inti-
mate the uselessness of such concessions in order to peace and"
agreement with them, whilst they have a Procrustes' bed to
lay us upon; and from whose size they will not recede.
Here and there one, (not above three or four in all, may be
named within this hundred and thirty years,) in the Roman
communion, has owned our doctrine of justification for the
substance of it. So did Albertus Pighius and the Antidogma
Coloniense, as Bellarmine acknowledges. And what he says
of Pighius is true, as we shall see afterwards; the other I have
not seen. Cardinal Contarenus, in a Treatise of Justification,
written before, and published about the beginning of the Trent
council, delivers himself in favour of it. But upon the obser-
vation of what he had done, some say he was shortly after
poisoned, though I must confess I know not where they had
the report.
But do what we can for the sake of peace, (as too much
cannot be done for it, with the safety of truth,) it cannot be
denied but that the doctrine of justification as it works effectu-
ally in the church of Rome, is the foundation of many enor-
mities among them both in judgment and practice. They do
not continue, I acknowledge, in that visible predominancy and
rage as formerly; nor are the generality of the people in so
much slavish bondage to them as they were. But the streams
of them still issue from this corrupt fountain, to the dangerous
infection of the souls of men. For the expiatory sacrifice of
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
81
the mass for the Hving and the dead, the necessity of auricular
confession, with authoritative absolution, penances, pilgrimages,
sacramentals, indulgences, commutations, works satisfactory
and supererogatory, the merit and intercession of saints depart-
ed, with especial devotions and applications to this or that par-
ticular saint or angel, purgatory, yea in fact the whole of
monastic devotion, depend thereon. They are all nothing but
ways invented to pacii'y the consciences of men, or divert them
from attending to the charge which is given in against them
by the law of God; sorry supplies they are of a righteousness
of their own, for them who know not how to submit themselves
to the righteousness of God. And if the doctrine of free justi-
fication by the blood of Christ were once again exploded, or
corrupted and made unintelligible; to these things, as absurd
and foolish as now to some they seem to be, or to something
not one jot better, men must and will again betake themselves.
For if once they are diverted from putting their trust in the
righteousness of Christ and grace of God alone, and do practi-
cally thereon follow after, take up with, or rest in that wdiich
is their own, the first impressions of a sense of sin which shall
befall their consciences, will drive them from their present hold,
to seek for shelter in any thing that tenders to them the least
appearance of relief. Men may talk and dispute what they
please whilst they are at peace in their own minds without a
real sense either of sin or righteousness; yea and scoff at them
who are not under the power of the same security. But when
they shall be awakened with other apprehensions of things
than yet they are aware of, they will be put on new resolutions.
And it is in vain to dispute with any about justification, who
have not been duly convinced of a state of sin, and of its guilt;
for such men neither understand what they say, nor that
whereof they dogmatize.
We have therefore the same reasons that the first reformers
had to be careful about the preservation of this doctrme of the
gospel pure and entire; though we may not expect the like
success with them in our endeavours to that end. For the
minds of the generality of men are in another posture than
they were, when they dealt with them. Under the power of
ignorance and superstition they were, but yet multitudes of
them affected with a sense of the guilt of sin. With us for the
most part things are quite otherwise. Notional light, accom-
panied with an insensibility of sin, leads men to a contempt of
82
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
this doctrine, indeed of the whole mystery of the gospel. We
have had experience of the fruits of the faith which we now
plead for in this nation for many years, yea now for some ages.
And it cannot well be denied that those who have been most
severely tenacious of the doctrine of justification by the imputa-
tion of the righteousness of Christ, have been the most exem-
plary in a holy life; I speak of former days. And if this
doctrine be yet further corrupted, debased, or unlearned among
us, we shall quickly fall into one of the extremes wherewith
we are at present urged on either side. For although the
reliefs provided in the church of Rome, for the satisfaction of
the consciences of men are at present by the most disliked, yea
despised; yet if they are once brought to a loss how to place
their whole trust and confidence in the righteousness of Christ
and grace of God in him, they will not always live at such an
uncertainty of mind, as the best of their own personal obedience
will hang them on the briars of; but betake themselves to
somewhat that tenders them certain peace and security, though
at present it may seem foolish to them. And I doubt not that
some, out of a mere ignorance of the righteousness of God,
which either they have not been taught, or have no mind to
learn, have with some integrity in the exercise of their con-
sciences, betaken themselves to that pretended rest which the
church of Rome offers them. For being troubled about their
sins, they think it better to betake themselves to that great
variety of means for the ease and discharge of their consciences
which the Roman church affords, than to abide where they
are, without the least pretence of relief, as men will find in due
time, there is no such thing to be found or obtained in them-
selves. They may go on for a time with good satisfaction to
their own minds; but if once they are brought to a loss through
the conviction of sin, they must look beyond themselves for
peace and satisfaction, or sit down without them to eternity.
Nor are the principles and ways which others take up with in
another extreme upon the rejection of this doctrine, although
more plausible, yet at all more really useful to the souls of men,
than those of the Roman church which they reject as obsolete,
and unsuited to the genius of the present age. For they all of
them arise from, or lead to, the want of a due sense of the na-
ture and guilt of sin, as also of the holiness and righteousness
of God with respect thereto. And when such principles as
these once grow prevalent in the minds of men, they quickly
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
83
grow careless, negligent, secure in sinning, and end for the
most part in atheism, or a great indifference to all religion, and
all the duties thereof.
CHAPTER I.
JUSTIFYING FAITH, THE CAUSES, OBJECT, AND NATURE OF IT, DECLARED.
The means of justification on our part is faith. That we are
"justified by faith," is so frequently, and so expressly aflirmed
in the Scripture, that it cannot directly and in terms by any be
denied. For whereas some begin, by an excess of partiality
to which controversial engagements and provocations incline
them, to affirm that our justification is more frequently ascribed
to other things, graces or duties, than to faith, it is to be passed
by in silence, and not contended about. But yet also the ex-
planation which some others make of this general concession,
That we are justified by faith, does as fully overthrow what is
affirmed therein, as if it were in terms rejected. And it would
more advantage the understandings of men, if it were plainly
refused upon its first proposal, than to be led about in a maze of
words, and distinctions to its real exclusion; as is done both by
the Romanists and Socinians. At present we may take the
proposition as granted, and only inquire into the true genuine
sense and meaning of it. That which first occurs to our con-
sideration is faith; and that which concerns it may be reduced
to two heads : (1) Its nature ; (2) Its use in our justification.
Of the nature of faith in general, of the especial nature of
justifying faith, of its characteristic distinctions from that which
is called faith, but is not justifying, so many discourses (divers
of them the effects of sound judgment and good experience,)
are already extant, that it is altogether needless to engage at
large in a further discussion of them. However, something
must be spoken to declare in what sense we understand these
things; what is that faith to which we ascribe our justification,
and what is its use therein.
The distinctions that are usually made concerning faith, {as it
is a word of various significations) I shall wholly omit; not only
as obvious and known, but as not belonging to our present ar-
84 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
gument. That which we are concerned in is, that in the Scrip-
ture there is mention made plainly of a twofold faith, whereby
men believe the gospel. For there is a faith whereby we are
justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved, which
purifies the heart, and works by love. And there is a faith or
believing which does nothing of all this; which he who has,
and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved. Wherefore
every faith, whereby men are said to believe, is not justifying.
Thus it is said of Simon the Magician that he "believed," Acts
viii. 13; when he was " in the gall of bitterness and bond of
iniquity," and therefore did not believe with that faith which
purifieth the heart," Acts xv. 9. And, that " many believed on
the name of Jesus when they saw the miracles that he did, but
Jesus did not commit himself unto them because he knew what
was in man," John ii. 23, 24. They did not believe on his
name as those do, or with that kind of faith, who thereon re-
ceive "power to become the sons of God," John i. 12. And
some when they hear the word, receive it with joy, believing
for a while, but have no root; Luke viii. 13. And faith with-
out a root in the heart will not justify any. For "with the
heart men believe unto righteousness," Rom. x. 10. So it is
with them who shall cry, at the last day. Lord, Lord, have
we not prophesied m thy name, whilst yet they were always
" workers of iniquity," Matt. vii. 22, 23.
This faith is usually called historical faith. But this denomi-
nation is not taken from the object of it, as though it were only
the history of the Scripture, or the historical things contained
in it. For it respects the whole truth of the word, yea of the
promises of the gospel as well as other things. But it is so
called from the nature of the assent wherein it consists. For
it is such as we give to historical things that are credibly testi-
fied to us.
And this faith has divers difl'erences or degrees, both in re-
spect to the grounds or reasons of it, and also its effects. For
as to the first, all faith is an assent upon testimony; and divine
faith is an assent upon a divine testimony. According as this
testimony is received, so are the differences or degrees of this
faith. Some apprehend it on human motives only, and its cre-
dibility to the judgment of reason; and their assent is a mere
natural act of their understanding, which is the lowest degree
of this historical faith. Some have their minds enabled to it by
spiritual illumination, making a discovery of the evidences of
divine truth whereon it is to be believed; the assent they give
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
85
hereon is more firm and operative than that of the former
sort.
Again, it has its differences or degrees with respect to its ef-
fects. With some it no way or very httle influences the will
or the affections, or works any change in the lives of men. So
is it with them that profess they believe the gospel, and yet live
in all manner of sins. In this degree it is called by the Apostle
James, a dead faith, and is compared to a dead carcass, without
hfe or motion; and it is an assent of the very same nature and
kind with that which devils are compelled to give. And this
faith abounds in the world. With others it has an effectual
work upon the affections, and that in many degrees also, re-
presented in the several sorts of ground whereinto the seed of
the word is cast; and produces many effects in their lives. In
the utmost improvement of it, both as to the evidence it pro-
ceeds from, and the effects it produces, it is usually called tern- I
porary faith', for it is neither permanent against all oppositions,
nor will bring any to eternal rest. The name is taken from
that expression of our Saviour concerning him who believes
with this faith, Tt^ooxo.i^oz tan, " dureth for a while," Matt,
xiii. 21.
This faith I grant to be true in its kind, and not merely to be
equivocally so called ; it is not rtiati^ ■^ivhi^vv^oi^, " a faith falsely
so called," it is so as to the general nature of faith; but of the
same special nature with justifying faith it is not. Justifying
faith is not a higher, or the highest degree of this faith, but is
of another kind or nature. Wherefore sundry things may be
observed concerning this faith in the utmost improvement of it
to our present purpose. As,
1. This faith with all the effects of it, men may have, and not
be justified; and if they have not faith of another kind they
cannot be justified. For justification is no where ascribed to
it, yea it is affirmed by the Apostle James, that none can be
justified by it.
2. It may produce great effects in the minds, affections, and
lives of men, although not one of those that are peculiar to
justifying faith. Yet such they may be, as that those in whom
they are wrought may be, and ought in the judgment of chari-
ty to be looked on as true believers.
3. This is that faith which may be alone. We are justified
by faith alone. But we are not justified by that faith which ,
can be alone. Alone, respects its influence on our justification,
not its nature and existence. And we absolutely denv that
8
1-
86 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
we can be justified by that faith which can be alone, that is
without a principle of spiritual life and universal obedience,
operative in all the works of it, as duty requires.
These things I have observed, only to obviate that calumny
and reproach which some endeavour to fix on the doctrine of
justification by faith only, through the mediation of Christ.
For those who assert it must be Solifidians, Antinomians, and
1 know not what; such as oppose or deny the necessity of uni-
versal obedience or good works. Most of those who manage
it cannot but know in their own consciences that this charge is
false. But this is the way of handling controversies with many.
They can aver any thing that seems to advantage the cause
they plead, to the great scandal of religion. If by Solifidians,
they mean those who believe that faith alone is, on our part,
the means, instrument, or condition (of which afterwards) of
our justification, all the Prophets and Apostles were so, and
were so taught by Jesus Christ, as shall be proved. If they
mean, those who affirm that the faith whereby we are justified
is alone, separate or separable from a principle and the fruit of
holy obedience, they must find them out themselves, we know
nothing of them. For we allow no faith to be of the same
kind or nature with that whereby we are justified, but what
virtually and radically contains in it universal obedience, as
the effect is in the cause, the fruit in the root; and which acts
itself in all particular duties, according as bj'' rule and circum-
stances they are made so to be. Yea we allow no faith to be
justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, which is not itself
and in its own nature a spiritually vital principle of obedience
and good works. And if this be Jiot sufficient to prevail with
some, not to seek for advantages by such shameful calumnies,
yet is it so with others, to free their minds from any concern-
ment in them.
For the especial nature of justifying faith which we inquire
into, the things whereby it is evidenced may be reduced to
these four heads. (1) The causes of it on the part of God. (2)
What is in us previously required to it. (3) The proper object
of it. (4) Its proper peculiar acts and effects. Which shall be
spoken to so far as is necessary to our present design.
1. The doctrine of the causes of faith as to its first original
ill the divine will, and the way of its communication to us, is
so large, and so mixed with that of the way and manner of the
operation of efficacious grace in conversion (which I have han-
dled elsewhere) that I shall not here insist upon it. For as it
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 87
cannot in a few words be spoken to according to its weight
and worth, so to engage in a full handling of it, would too
much divert us from our present argument. This I shall only-
say, that from thence it may be uncontrollably evidenced, that
the faith whereby we are justified, is of an especial kind or
nature wherein no other faith which justification is not insepa-
rable from, partakes with it.
2, Wherefore our first inquiry is concerning what was pro-
posed in the second place, namely, what is on our part, in a
way of duty, previously required thereto; or what is necessary
to be found in us antecedent to our believing to the justifica-
tion of life. And I say there is supposed in them in whom this
faith is wrought, on whom it is bestowed, and whose duty it
is to believe therewith, the work of the law in the conviction
of sin; or conviction of sin is a necessary antecedent to justify-'
ing faith. Many have disputed what belongs hereto, and what
effects it produces in the mind, that dispose the soul to the re-
ceiving of the promise of the gospel. But whereas there are
different apprehensions about these effects or concomitants of
conviction, (in compunction, humiliation, self-judging, with
sorrow for sin committed, and the like) as also about the de-
grees of them, as ordinarily prerequired to faith and conversion
to God; I shall speak very briefly to them, so far as they are
inseparable from the conviction asserted. And I shall first con-
sider this conviction itself, with what is essential thereto, and
then the'effects of it in coiijunction with that temporary faith
before spoken of. I shall do so, not as to their nature, the
knowledge whereof I take for granted, but only as they have
respect to our justification.
As to the first I say, the work of conviction in general,
whereby the soul of man has a practical understanding of the
nature of sin, its guilt and the punishment due to it, and is
made sensible of his own interest therein, both with respect to
sin original and actual, with his own utter inability to deliver
himself out of the state and condition, wherein on the account
of these things he finds himself to be, is that which we affirm
to be antecedently necessary to justifying faith; that is in the
adult, and of whose justification the word is the external means
and instrument.
A coriyinced siimeralone is a subject capable of justification;
not that every one that is convinced is or must necessarily be
justified. There is not any such disposition or preparation of
the subject by this conviction, its effects and consequences,
OO JUSTIFYING FAITH.
as that the form of justification, as the Papists speak, or justi-
fying grace, must necessarily ensue or be introduced thereon.
Nor is there any such preparation in it, as that by virtue of
any divine compact or promise, a person so convinced, shall
be pardoned and justified. But as a man may believe with
any kind of faith that is not justifying, such as that before
mentioned, without this conviction, so it is ordinarily and neces-
sarily previous to that faith which is to the justification of life.
The motive to it, is not that thereon a man shall be assuredly
justified; but that without it he cannot be so.
This I say is required in the person to be justified in order of
nature antecedent to that faith whereby we are justified, which
we shall prove with the ensuing arguments. For (1) without
the due consideration and supposition of it, the true nature of
faith can never be understood. For as we have showed before,
justification is God's way of the deliverance of the convinced
sinner, or one whose "mouth is stopped," and who is "guilty
before God," obnoxious to the law, and shut up under sin.
A sense therefore of this estate and all that belongs to it, is
required to believing. Hence Le Blanc who has searched
with some diligence into these things, commends the definition
of faith given by Mestrezat; that it is "the flight of a penitent
sinner to the mercy of God in Christ." And there is indeed
more sense and truth in it, than in twenty other that seem
more accurate. But without a supposition of the conviction
mentioned, there is no understanding of this definition of faith.
For it is that alone which puts the soul upon a flight to the
mercy of God in Christ, to be saved from the wrath to come;
Heb. vi. IS ; " fled for refuge."
2. The order, relation, and use of the law and the gospel
uncontrollably evince the necessity of this conviction pre-
viously to believing. For that which any man has first to
deal with, with respect to his eternal condition, both naturally
and by God's institution, is the laiv. This is first presented to
the soul, with its terms of righteousness and life, and with its
curse in case of failure. Without this the gospel cannot be
understood, nor the grace of it duly valued. For it is the reve-
lation of God's way for the relieving the souls of men from the
sentence and curse of the law, Rom. i. 17. That was the
nature, that was the tise and end of the first promise, and of
the whole work of God's grace revealed in all the ensuing
promises, or in the whole gospel. Wherefore the faith which
we treat of being evangelical, that which in its especial nature
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 89
and use, not the law but the gospel requires, that which has
the gospel for its principle, rule, and object, it is not required of
us, cannot be acted by us, but on a supposition of the work
and effect of the law in the conviction of sin, by giving the
knowledge of it, a sense of its guilt, and the state of the sinner
on the account thereof. And that faith which has not respect
hereto, we absolutely deny to be that faith whereby we are
justified. Gal. iii. 22 — 24. Rom. x. 4.
3. This our Saviour himself directly teaches in the gospel.
For he calls to him only those who are " weary and heavy
laden," affirms that "the whole have no need of the physiciati
but the sick ;" and that he "came not to call the righteous but
sinners to repentance." In all which he intends not those who
were really sinners, as all men are, for he makes a difference
between them, offering the gospel to some and not to others;
but such as were convinced of sin, burdened with it, and sought
after deliverance.
So those to whom the Apostle Peter proposed the promise of
the gospel with the pardon of sin, thereby as the object of
gospel faith, were "-pricked to the heart" upon the conviction
of their sin, and cried " what shall we do?" Acts ii. 37 — 39.
Such also was the state of the jailor to whom the Apostle
Paul proposed salvation by Christ, as what he was to believe
for his deliverance, Acts xvi. 30, 31.
4. The state of Adam and God's dealing with him therem,
is the best representation of the order and method of these
things. As he was after the fall, so are we by nature in the very
same state and condition. Really he was utterly lost by sin,
and convinced he was both of the nature of his sin, and of the
effects of it, in that act of God by the law on his mind, which
is called the opening of his eyes. For it was nothing but the
communication to his mind by his conscience of a sense of the
nature, guilt, effects, and consequences of sin, which the law
could then teach him, and could not do so before. This fills
him with shame and fear; against the former whereof he pro-
vided by fig-leaves, and against the latter by hiding himself
among the trees of the garden. Nor, however they may please
themselves with tliem, are any of the contrivances of men, for
freedom and safety from sin, either wiser or more likely to
have success. In this condition, God by an immediate inqui-
sition into the matter of fact, sharpens this conviction by the
addition of his own testimony to its truth, and casts him actually
under the curse of the law, iix a juridical denunciation of it.
8*
90 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
Ill this lost, forlorn, hopeless condition God proposes the pro-
mise of redemption by Christ to him. And this was the object
of that faith whereby he was to be justified.
Although these things are not thus eminently and distinctly
transacted in the minds and consciences of all who are called to
believing by the gospel, yet for the substance of them, and as
to the previousness of the conviction of sin to faith, they are
found in all that sincerely believe.
These things are known, and for the substance of them gener-
ally agreed to. But yet are they such as being duly considered
will discover the vanity and mistakes of many definitions of
faith that are obtruded on us. For any definition or description
of it, which has not express, or at least virtual respect hereto,
is but a deceit, and no way answers the experience of them
that truly believe. And such are all those who place it merely in
an assent to divine revelation, of what nature soever that assent
be, and whatever effects are ascribed to it. For such an assent
there may be without any respect to this work of the law.
Nor do I, to speak plainly, at all value the most accurate dis-
putations of any about the nature and act of justifying faith,
who never had in themselves an experience of the work of the
law in conviction and condemnation for sin, with the effects of
it upon their consciences; or who omit the due consideration of
their own experience, wherein what they truly believe is better
stated than in all their disputations. That faith whereby we
are justified is in general the acting of the soul towards God,
as revealing himself in the gospel for deliverance out of this
state and condition, or from under the curse of the law applied
to the conscience, according to his mind, and by the ways that
he has appointed. I give not this as any definition of faith,
but only express, what has a" necessary influence upon it,
whence the nature of it may be discerned.
2. The effects of this conviction, with their respect to our
justification, real or pretended, may also be briefly considered.
And whereas this conviction is a mere work of the law, it is
not with respect to these effects to be considered alone, but in
conjunction with, and under the conduct of that temporary
faith of the gospel before described. And these two, tempo-
rary faitii and legal conviction, are the principles of all works
or duties in religion antecedent to justification, and which
therefore we must deny to have in them any causality thereof.
But it is granted that many acts and duties both internal and
external, will ensue on real convictions. Those that are inter-
JUSTIFYING FAITH, 91
nal may be reduced to three heads. (1) Displeasure and
sorrow that we have sinned. It is impossible that any one
should be really convinced of sin in the way before declared,
but that a dislike of sin, and of himself that he has sinned,
shame of it, and sorrow for it, will ensue thereon. And it is a
sufficient evidence that he is not really convinced of sin, what-
ever he profess, or whatever confession he make, whose mind
is not so affected, Jer. xxxvi. 24, (2) Fear of punishment due
to sin. For conviction respects not only the instructive and
preceptive part of the law, whereby the being and nature of
sin are discovered, but the sentence and curse of it also, where-
by it is judged and condemned, Gen. iv. 13, 14. Wherefore;,
where fear of the punishment threatened does not ensue, no
person is really convinced of sin; nor has the law had its pro-
per work towards him, as it is previous to the administra-
tion of the gospel. And whereas by faith we " flee from the
wrath to come," where there is not a sense and apprehension
of that wrath as due to us, there is no ground or reason for
our believing. (3) A desire of deliverance from that stale
wherein a convinced sinner finds himself upon his conviction,
is unavoidable to him. And it is naturally the first thing that
conviction works in the minds of men, and that in various de-
grees of care, fear, soliciiude and restlessness, which from ex-
perience and the conduct of Scripture light, have been explained
by many, to the great benefit of the church, and sufficiently
derided by others. (2) These internal acts of the mind will
also produce sundry external duties which may be referred to
two heads. (1) Abstinence from known sin to the utmost of
men's power. For they who begin to find that it is an evil
thing and a bitter that they have sinned against God, cannot
but endeavour a future abstinence from it. And as this has
respect to all the former internal acts, as causes of it, so it is a
peculiar consequence of the last of them, the desire of deliver-^,
ance from the state wherein such persons are. For this they
suppose to be the best expedient for it, or at least that without
which it will not be. And herein usually their spirits act by
promises and vows, with renewed sorrow on surprisals into
sin, which will befall them in that condition. (2) The duties of
religious worship in prayer and hearing of the word, with dili-
gence in the use of the ordinances of the church, will ensue
hereon. For without these they know that no deliverance is
to be obtained. Reformation of life and conversation in va-
rious degrees partly consists in these things, and partly follows
92 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
upon them. And these things are always so, where the con-
victions of men are real and abiding.
But yet it must be said, that they are neither severally nor
jointly, though in the highest degree, either necessary disposi-
tions, preparations, previous congruities in a way of merit, or
conditions of our justification. For,
1. They are not conditions of justification. For where one
thing is the condition of another, that other thing must follow
the fufiliing of that condition. Otherwise it is not the condition
of it. But they may be all found where justification does not
ensue. Wherefore there is no covenant, promise, or constitu-
tion of God, making them to be such conditions of justification,
though in their own nature they may be subservient to what is
required of us with respect thereto. But a certain infallible
connexion with it by virtue of any promise or covenant of God
(as it is with faith) they have not. And other condition, but
what is constituted and made to be so by divine compact or
promise, is not to be allowed. For otherwise conditions might
be endlessly multiplied, and all things natural as well as moral
made to be so. So the meat we eat may be a condition of jus-
tificatinn. Faith and justification are inseparable, but so are
not justification and the things we now insist upon, as expe-
rience evnices.
2. Justification may be where the outward acts and duties
mentioned, proceeding from convictions under the conduct of
temporary faith, are not. For Adam was justified without
them, so also were the converts in the Acts, chap. ii. For
what is reported concerning them is all of it essentially included
in conviction; ver. 37. And so likewise was it with the jailor;
Acts xvi. 30, 31. And as to many of them, it is so with most
that do believe. Therefore they are not conditions. For a
condition suspends the event of that whereof it is a condition.
3. They are not formal dispositions to justification, because
it consists not in the introduction of any new form or inherent
quality in the soul, as has been in part already declared, and
shall yet afterwards be more fully evinced. Nor 4. are they
moral preparations for it; for being antecedent to evangelical
faith, no man can have any design in them, but only to seek
for righteousness by the works of the law, which is no prepa-
ration to justification. All discoveries of the righteousness of
God, with the soul's adherence to it, belong to faith alone.
There is indeed a repentance which accompanies faith, and is
included in the nature of it, at least radically. This is re-
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
93
quired to our justification. But that legal repentance which
precedes gospel faith and is without it, is neither a disposition,
preparation, nor condition of our justification.
In brief; the order of these things may be observed in the
dealing of God with Adam, as was before intimated. And there
are three degrees in it. (1) The opening of the eyes of the sin-
ner, to see the filth and guilt of sin in the sentence and curse
of the law applied to his conscience, Rom. vii. 9, 10. This ef-
fects in the mind of the sinner the things before mentioned,
and puts him upon all the duties that spring from them. For
persons on their first convictions ordinarily judge no more but
that their state being evil and dangerous, it is their duty to
better it, and that they can or shall do so accordingly, if they
apply themselves to it. But all these things as to a protection
or deliverance from the sentence of the law, are no better than
fig-leaves and hiding. (2) Ordinarily God by his providence,
or in the dispensation of the word, gives life and power to this
work of the law in a peculiar manner; in answer to the charge
which he gave to Adam after his attempt to hide himself.
Hereby the mouth of the sinner is stopped, and he becomes
thoroughly sensible of his guilt before God, and satisfied that
there is no relief or deliverance to be expected from any of
those ways of sorrow or duty that he has put himself upon.
(3) In this condition it is a mere act of sovereign grace, with-
out any respect to these things foregoing, to call the sinner to
believing, or faith in the promise, to the justification of life.
This is God's order; yet so that what precedes his call to faith,
has no causality thereof.
3, The next thing to be inquired into is the proper object of TTP
justifying faith, or of true faith, in its office, work and duty, ~ —
with respect to our justification. And herein we must first
consider what we cannot so well close with. For besides other
ditferences that seem to be about it, which indeed are but dif-
ferent explanations of the same thing for the substance, there
are two opinions which are looked on as extremes, the one in
an excess and the other in defect. The first is that of the Ro-
man church, and those who comply with them therein. And
this is, that the object of justifying faith as such, is all divine
verity, all divine revelation, whether written in the Scripture,
or delivered by tradition represented to us by the authority of
the church. In the latter part of this description we are not at
present concerned. That the whole Scripture and all the parts
of it, and all the truths of what sort soever they be that are con-
94 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
tained in it, are equally the object of faith in the discharge of
its office in our justification, is that which they maintain. Hence
as to the nature of it they cannot allow it to consist in any
thing but an assent of the mind. For supposing the whole Scrip-
ture, and all contained in it, laws, precepts, promises, threaten-
ings, stories, prophecies, and the like, to be the object of it, and
these not as containing in them tilings good or evil to us, but
under this formal consideration as divinely revealed, they can-
not assign or allow any other act of the mind to be required
hereto, but assent only. And so confident are they herein,
namely, that faith is no more than an assent to divine revela-
tion, as that Bellarmine in opposition to Calvin, who placed
knowledge in the description of justifying faith, affirms that
it is better defined by ignorance than by knowledge.
This description of justifying faith and its object, has been so
discussed, and on such evident grounds of Scripture and reason
rejected by Protestant writers of all sorts, that it is needless to
insist mucli upon it again. Some things I shall observe in re-
lation to it, whereby we may discover what is of truth in what
they assert, and wherein it falls short thereof. Neither shall I
respect only them of the Roman church, who require no more
to faith or believing, but only a bare assent of the mind to di-
vine revelations, but them also who place it wholly in such
a firm assent as produces obedience to all divine commands.
For as it does both these, as both these are included in it, so
to the especial nature of it more is required. It is, as justifying,
neither a mere assent, nor any such firm degree of it, as should
produce such effects.
1. All faith whatever is an act of that power of our souls in
general, whereby we are able firmly to assent to the truth upon
testimony, in things not evident to us by sense or reason. It is
" the evidence of things not seen." And all divine faith is in
general an assent to the truth that is proposed to us upon divine
testimony. And hereby, as it is commonly agreed, it is dis-
tinguished from opinion and moral certainty on the one hand,
and science or demonstration on the other.
2. Wherefore in justifying faith, there is an assent to all di-
vine revelation upon the testimony of God the revealer. By
no other act of our mind, wherein this is not included or sup-
posed, can we be justified; not because it is not justifying, but
because it is not faith. This assent I say is included in justi-
fying taith. And therefore we find it often spoken of in the
Scripture (the instances whereof are gathered up by Bellarmine
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 95
and others,) with respect to other things, and not restrained to
the especial promise of grace in Christ, which is that which
they oppose. But besides, that in most places of that kind,
the proper object of faith as justifying is included and ultimate-
ly referred to, though diversely expressed by some of its causes
or concomitant adjuncts, it is granted that we believe all divine
truth, with that very faith whereby we are justified, so that
other things may well be ascribed to it.
3. On these concessions we yet say two things, (1) That the
whole nature of justifying faith does not consist merely in an
assent of the mind, be it never so firm and steadfast, nor what-
ever effects of obedience it may produce. (2) That in its duty
and office in justification, whence it has that especial denomi-
nation, which alone we are in the explanation of, it does not
equally respect all divine revelation as such, but has a peculiar
object proposed to it in the Scripture. And whereas both these
will be immediately evinced in our description of the' proper
object and nature of faith, I shall at present oppose some few
things to this description of them, sufficient to manifest how
foreign it is from the truth.
1. This assent is an act of the understanding only; an act
of the mind with respect to truth evidenced to it, be it of what
nature it will. So we believe the worst of things and the most
grievous to us, as well as the best and the most useful. But
believing is an act of the heart, which in the Scripture com-
prises all the faculties of the soul, as one entire principle of
moral and spiritual duties. " With the heart man believeth
unto righteousness," Rom. x. 10. And it is frequently de-
scribed by an act of the will, though it be not so alone. But
without an act of the will no man can believe as he ought. See
John V. 40. John i. 12. chap. vi. 35. We come to Christ in an
act of the will, and let " whosoever will" come. And to "be
willing" is taken for to believe, Psal. ex. 3, and "unbelief" is
disobedience, Heb. iii. 18, 19.
2. All divine truth is equally the object of this assent. It
respects not the especial nature or use of any one truth, be it
of what kind it will, more than another; nor can it do so,
since it regards only divine revelation. Hence that Judas was
the traitor must have as great an influence upon our justifica-
tion, as that Christ died for our sins. But how contrary this
is to the Scripture, the analogy of faith, and the experience of
all that believe, needs neither declaration nor confirmation.
3. This assent to all divine revelation may be true and sin-
i
96 JUSTIFVING FAITH.
cere, where there has been no previous work of the law, nor
any conviction of sin. No such thing is required thereto, nor
are they found in many who yet do so assent to the truth.
But, as we have showed, this is necessary to evangehcal justi-
fying faith; and to suppose the contrary is to overthrow the
order and use of the law and gospel, with their mutual relation
to one another in subservience to the design of God in the sal-
vation of sinners.
4. It is not a way of seeking relief to a convinced sinner,
whose mouth is stopped, in that he is become guilty before
God. Such alone are capable subjects of justification, and do
or can seek after it in a due manner. A mere assent to divine
revelation is not peculiarly suited to give such persons relief.
For it is that which brings them into that condition, from
whence they are to be relieved. For the knowledge of sin is
by the law. But faith is a peculiar acting of the soul for de-
liverance.
5. It is no more than what the devils themselves have, as the
Apostle James affirms. For that instance of their believing
one God, proves that they believe also whatever this one God,
who is the first essential truth, reveals, to be true. And it
may consist with all manner of wickedness, and without any
obedience; and so make God a liar, 1 John ii. 4. And it is no
wonder if men deny us to be justified by faith, who know no
other faith but this.
6. It no way answers the descriptions that are given of jus-
tifying faith in the Scripture. Particularly it is by faith as it
is justifying that we are said to "receive Christ;" John i. 12.
Col. ii. 6. To receive the promise, the word, the grace of God,
the atonement, James i. 21. John iii. 33. Acts ii. 41, chap. xi.
1. Rom. V. 11. Heb. xi. 17. To cleave unto God, Deut. iv.
4. Acts xi. 23. And so in the Old Testament it is generally
expressed by trust and hope. Now none of these things are
contained in a mere assent to the truth; but they require
other actings of the soul than what are peculiar to the under-
standing only.
7. It answers not the experience of them that truly believe.
This all our inquiries and arguments in this matter must have
respect to. For the sum of what we aim at, is only to discover
what they do, who really believe to the justification of life. It
is not what notions men may have hereof, nor how they ex-
press their conceptions, how defensible they are against objec-
tions by accuracy of expressions and subtile distinctions ; but
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
97
only what we ourselves do, if we truly believe, that we inquire
after. And although our differences about it argue the great
imperfection of that state wherein we are, so that those who
truly believe cannot agree what they do in their so doing,
which should give us a mutual tenderness and forbearance to-
wards each other; yet if men would attend to their own expe-
rience in the application of their souls to God, for the pardon
of sin and righteousness to life, more than to the notions which
on various occasions their minds are influenced by, or prepos-
sessed with, many differences and unnecessary disputations
about the nature of justifying faith would be prevented or cut
off. I deny therefore that this general assent to the truth, how*
firm soever it be, or what effects in the way of duty or obe-
dience soever it may produce, answers the experience of any
one true believer, as containing the entire actings of his soul
towards God for pardon of sin and justification.
8. That faith alone is justifying which has justification ac-
tually accompanying it. For thence alone it has that deno-
mination. To suppose a man to have justifying faith, and not
to be justified, is to suppose a contradiction. Nor do we in-
quire after the nature of any other faith but that whereby a
believer is actually justified. But it is not so with all them in
whom this assent is found ; nor will those that plead for it, allow
that upon it alone any are immediately justified. Wherefore it is /
sulliciently evident that there is somewhat more required to jus- /
tifying faith, than a real assent to all divine revelations, although
we give that assent by the faith whereby we are justified.
But on the other side, it is supposed that, by some, the object
of justifying faith is so much restrained, and the nature of it
thereby determined to such a peculiar acting of the mind, as
comprises not the whole of what is in the Scripture ascribed to
it. So some have said, that it is the pardon of our sins in par-
ticular that is the object of justifying faith; faith therefore they
make to be a full persuasion of the forgiveness of our sins
through the mediation of Christ; or that what Christ did and
suffered as our mediator, he did for us in particular. And a
particular application of especial mercy to our own souls and
consciences is hereby made the essence of faith. Or to believe
that our own sins are forgiven, seems hereby to be the first
and most proper act of justifying faith. Hence it would follow
that whosoever does not believe, or has not a firm persuasion
of the forgiveness of his own sins in particular, has no saving
faith, is no true believer; which is by no means to be admitted.
9
98 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
And if any have been or are of this opinion, I fear that they
were in the asserting of it, neghgent of their own experience;
or it may be rather, that they knew not how in their experience
all the other actings of faith, wherein its essence consists, were
inclnded in this persuasion, which in an especial manner they
aimed at; whereof we shall speak afterwards. And there is
no doubt to me but that this which they propose, faith is suited
to, aims at, and ordinarily effects in true believers, who im-
prove it, and grow in its exercise in a due manner.
Many great divines at the first Reformation, did (as the Lu-
therans generally yet do) thus make the mercy of God in Christ,
and thereby the forgiveness of our own sins, to be the proper
object of justifying faith, as such; whose essence therefore
they placed in a fiducial trust in the grace of God by Christ
declared in the promises, with a certain unwavering applica-
tion of them to ourselves. And I say with some confidence,
that those who endeavour not to attain to this, either under-
stand not the nature of believing, or are very negligent both
of the grace of God, and of their own peace.
That which inclined those great and holy persons so to ex-
press themselves in this matter, and to place the essence of faith
in the highest acting of it, (wherein yet they always included
and supposed its other acts) was the state of the consciences
of men with whom they had to do. Their contest in this arti-
cle with the Roman Church, was about the way and means
whereby the consciences of convinced troubled sinners might
come to rest and peace with God. For at that time they were
no otherwise instructed, but tb.at these things were to be ob-
tained, not only by works of righteousness which men did
themselves in obedience to the commands of God, but also by
the strict observance of many inventions of what they called
the church; with an ascription of a strange efficacy to the same
ends, to the sacrifice of the mass, sacraments, absohitions, pe-
nances, pilgrimages, and other the like superstitions. Hereby
they observed that the consciences of men were kept in perpe-
tual disquietments, perplexities, fears and bondage, exclusive
of that rest, assurance, and peace with God through the blood
of Christ, which the gospel proclaims and tenders. And when
the leaders of the people in that church had observed this, that
indeed the ways and means which they proposed and present-
ed, would never bring the souls of men to rest, nor give them
the least assurance of the pardon of sins, they made it a part
of their doctrine, that the belief of the pardon of our own sins,
JUSTIFYING FAITU. 99
and assurance of the love of God in Christ, were false and per-
nicious. For what should they else do, when they knew well
enough, that in their way, and by their propositions they were
not to be attained? Hence the principal controversy in this
matter which the reformed divines had with those of the church
of Rome was this, whether there be according to and by the
gospel, a state of rest and assured peace with God to be at-
tained in this life. And having all advantages imaginable for
the proof hereof, from the very nature, nse, and end of the
gospel, from the grace, love, and design of God in Christ, from
the efficacy of his mediation in his oblation and intercession,
they assigned these things to be the especial object of justifying'
faith, and that faith itself to be a fiducial trust in the especial (
grace.and mercy of God, through the blood of Christ, as pro-
posed in the promises of the gospel. That is, they directed
the souls of men to seek for peace with God, the pardon of sin,
and a right to the heavenly inheritance, by placing their sole
trust and confidence in the mercy of God by Christ alone. But
yet withal I never read any of them, (I know not what others
have done,) who affirmed that every true and sincere be-
liever always had a full assurance of the especial love of God
in Christ, or of the pardon of his own sins; though they plead
that this the Scripture requires of them in a way of duty, and
that this they ought to aim at the attainment of
And these things I shall leave as I find them, to the use of
the church. For I shall not contend with any about the way
and manner of expressing the truth, where the substance of it
is retained. That which in these things is aimed at, is the ad-
vancement and glory of the grace of God in Christ, with the
conduct of the souls of men to rest and peace with him. Where
this is attained or aimed at, and that in the way of truth for
the substance of it, variety of apprehensions and expressions
concerning the same things, may tend to the useful exercise of
the faith and edification of the church. Wherefore neither op-
posing nor rejecting what has been delivered by others as their
judgments herein, I shall propose my own thoughts concerning
it; not without some hopes that they may tend to communicate
light in the knowledge of the thing itself inquired into, and the
reconciliation of some differences about it amongst learned and
holy men. I say therefore, that the Lord Jesus Christ himself,
as the ordinance of God in his work of mediation for the reco-
very and salvation of lost sinners, and as to that end proposed
in the promise of the gospel, is the adequate proper object of
100 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
justifying faith, or of saving faith in its work and duty with
respect to our justification.
The reason why I thus state the object of justifying faith, is
because it completely answers all that is ascribed to it in the
Scripture, and all that the nature of it requires. What belongs
to it as faith in general is here supposed; and what is peculiar
to it as justifying, is fully expressed. And a few things will
serve for the explication of the thesis which shall afterwards
be confirmed.
1. The Lord Jesus Christ himself is asserted to be the pro-
per object of justifying faith. For so it is required in all
those testimonies of Scripture where that faith is declared to
be our "believing in him, on his name,^' our "receiving of
him, or looking to him," to which the promise of justification
and eternal life is annexed; whereof afterwards. See John i.
12.; iii. 16, 36.; vi. 29, 47.; vii. 38.; XV. 25. Acts x. 41. Acts
xiii. 38, 39. Acts xvi. 31. Acts xxvi. 18., &c.
2. He is not proposed as the object of our faith to the justi-
fication of life absolutely, but as the ordinance of God even
the Father to that end, who therefore also is the immediate
object of faith as justifying; in what resjjects we shall declare
immediately. So justification is frequently ascribed to faith as
peculiarly acted on him, John. v. 24. "He that believeth on
him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
judgment, but is passed from death into life." And herein is
comprised that grace, love and favour of God, which is the
principal moving cause of our justification, Rom. iii. 23, 24.
Add hereto, John vi. 29. and the object of faith is complete.
" This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he
hath sent." God the Father as sending, and the Son as sent,
that is, Jesus Christ in the work of his mediation, as the ordi-
nance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners, is
the object of our faith. See 1 Pet, i. 21.
3. That he maybe the object of our faith, whose general na-
ture consists in assent, which is the foundation of all its other acts,
he is proposed in the promises of the gospel, which I therefore
place as concurring to its complete object. Yet do I not herein
consider the promises merely as peculiar divine revelations, in
which sense they belong to the formal object of faith ; but as they
contain, propose, and exhibit Christ as the ordinance of God and
the benefits of his mediation to them that believe. There is
an especial assent to the promises of the gospel, wherein some
place the nature and essence of justifying faith, or of faith in
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 101
its work and duty with respect to our justification. And so
they make the promises of the gospel to be the proper object
of it. And it cannot be, but that in the actings of justifying
faith there is a peculiar assent to them. Howbeit this being
only an act of the mind, neither the whole nature nor the
whole work of faith can consist therein. Wherefore so far as
the promises concur to the complete object of faith, they are
considered materially also, namely, as they contain, propose,
and exhibit Christ to believers. And in that sense are they
frequently affirmed in the Scripture to be the object of our faith
to the justification of life. Acts ii, 39. Acts xxvi. 6. Rom. iv. 16,
20.; XV. 8. Gal. iii. 16, 18. Heb. iv. 1.; vi. 13.; viii. 6.; x. 36.
4. The end for which the Lord Christ, in the work of his
mediation, is the ordinance of God, and as such proposed in
the promises of the gospel, namely, the recovery and salvation
of lost sinners, belongs to the object of faith as justifying.
Hence the forgiveness of sin and eternal life are proposed m
the Scripture as things that are to be believed to justification,
or as the object of our faith, Matth. ix. 2. Acts ii. 38, 39.; v. 31.;
xxvi. 18. Rom. iii. 25.; iv. 7, S. Col. ii. 13. Tit. i. 2., &c. And
whereas the just is to live by his faith, and every one is to
believe for himself, or make an application of the things be-
lieved to his own behoof, some from hence have affirmed the
pardon of our own sins, and our own salvation to be the pro-
per object of faith, and indeed it does belong thereto, when in
the way and order of God and the gospel, we can attain to it,
1 Cor. XV. 3, 4. Gal. ii. 20. Ephes. i. 6, 7.
Wherefore asserting the Lord Jesus Christ in the work of
his mediation to be the object of faith to justification, I include
therein the grace of God which is the cause, the pardon of sin
which is the effect, and the promises of the gospel which are
the means, of communicating Christ and the benefit of his
mediation to us.
And all these things are so united, so intermixed in their
mutual relations and respects, so concatenated in the purpose
of God, and the declaration made of his will in the gospel, that
the believing of any one of them virtually includes the belief of
the rest. And they by whom any one of them is disbelieved,
frustrate and make void all the rest, and so faiih itself.
The due consideration of these things solves all the difficul-
ties that arise about the nature of faith, either from the Scrip-
ture, or from the experience of them that believe, with respect
to its object. Many things in the Scripture are we said to
9*
102 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
believe with it and by it, and that to justification. But two
things are hence evident. (1) That no one of them can be
asserted to be the complete adequate object of our faith.
(2) That none of them are so absolutely, but as they relate to
the Lord Christ, as the ordinance of God for our justification
and salvation.
And this answers the experience of all that truly believe.
For these things being united and made inseparable in the con-
stitution of God, all of them are virtually included in every one
of them. (1) Some fix their faith and trust principally on the
grace, love, and mercy of God; especially they did so under
the Old Testament before the clear revelation of Christ and his
mediation. So did the Psalmist, Psal. cxxx. 34. Psal. xxxiii.
18, 19. And the publican, Luke xviii. 13. And these are in
places of the Scripture innumerable proposed as the causes of
our justification. See Rom. iii. 24. Ephes. ii. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Tit. iii. 5, 6, 7. But this they do not absolutely, but with re-
spect to the redemption that is in the blood of Christ; Dan.
ix. 17. Nor does the Scripture any where propose them to
us, but under that consideration. See Rom. iii. 24, 25. Ephes.
i. 6, 7, 8. For this is the cause, way, and means of the com-
munication of that grace, love, and mercy to us. (2) Some
place and fix them principally on the Lord Christ, his media-
tion and the benefits thereof This the Apostle Paul proposes
frequently to us in his own example. See Gal. ii. 20. Phil,
iii. S, 9, 10. But this they do not absolutely, but with respect
to the grace and love of God, whence it is that they are given
and commimicated to us, Rom. viii. 32. John iii. 16. Ephes.
i. 6, 7, 8. Nor are they otherwise any where proposed to us in
the Scripture as the object of our faith to justification. (3) Some
in a peculiar manner fix their souls in believing on the promises.
And this is exemplified in the instance of Abraham, Gen. xv.
16. Rom. iv. 20. And so are they proposed in the' Scripture as
the object of our faith. Acts ii. 39. Rom. iv. 16. Heb. iv. 1, 2;
chap. vi. 12, 13. But this they do not merely as they are di-
viue revelations, but as they contain and propose to us the
Lord Christ and the benefits of his mediation, from the grace,
love, and mercy of God. Hence the Apostle disputes at large
in his Epistle to the Galatians, that if justification be any way
but by the promise, both the grace of God and the death of
Christ are evacuated and made of none effect. And the reason
is, because the promise is nothing but the way and means of
the communication of them to us. (4) Some fix their faith on
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
103
the things themselves which they aim at; namely, the pardon
of sin and eternal life. And these also in the Scripture are
proposed to us as the object of our faith, or that which we
are to believe to justification. Psalm cxxx. 4. Acts xxvi. 18.
Tit. i. 2. But this is to be done in its proper order, especially
as to the application of them to our own souls. For we are
no where required to believe them, or our own interest in
them, but as they are effects of grace, and love of God, through
Christ and his mediation proposed in the promises of the gospel.
Wherefore the belief of them is included in the belief of these,
and is in order of nature antecedent thereto. And the belief of
the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, without the due exer-
cise of faith in those causes of them, is but presumption.
I have therefore given the entire object of faith as justifying,
or in its work and duty with respect to our justification, in com-
pliance with the testimonies of the Scripture and the experience
of them that believe.
Allowing therefore their proper place to the promises, and
to the effect of all in the pardon of sins and eternal life; that
which I shall further confirm, is, that the Lord Christ in the
work of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the reco-
very and salvation of lost sinners, is the proper adequate ob-
ject of justifying faith. And the true nature of evangelical
faith consists in the respect of the heart (which we shall im-
mediately describe) to the love, grace, and wisdom of God,
with the mediation of Christ, in his obedience, with the sacri-
fice, satisfaction, and atonement for sin which he made by his
blood. These things are impiously opposed by some as incon-
sistent. For the second head of the Socinian impiety is, that
the grace of God, and satisfaction of Christ are opposite and
inconsistent, so that if we allow of the one we must deny the
other. But as these things are so proposed in the Scripture,
that without granting them both, neither can be believed ; so
faith which respects them as subordinate, namely, the media-
tion of Christ to the grace of God, that fixes itself on the Lord
Christ and that redemption which is in his blood, as the ordi-
nance of God, the effect of his wisdom, grace and love, finds
rest in both, and in nothing else.
For the proof of the assertion I need not labour in it; it be-
ing not only abundantly declared in the Scripture, but that
which contains in it a principal part of the design and substance
of the gospel. I shall therefore only refer to some of the places
wherein it is taught, or the testimonies that are given to it.
104 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
The whole is expressed in that place of the Apostle wherein
the doctrine of justification is most eminently proposed to us,
Rom. iii. 24, 25: " Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; to declare
his righteousness for the remission of sins." Whereto we may
add, Ephes. i. 6, 7. " He hath made us accepted in the beloved,
in whom we have redemption through his blood, according to
the riches of his grace." That whereby we are justified is the
especial object of our faith to justification. But this is the
Lord Christ in the work of his mediation. For we are justified
by the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; for in him we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin.
Christ as a propitiation is the cause of our justification, and
the object of our faith, or we attain it by faith in his blood.
But this is so under this formal consideration, as he is the ordi-
nance of God for that end appointed, given, proposed, set forth
from and by the grace, wisdom, and love of God. God set
him forth to be a propitiation. He makes us accepted in the
beloved. We have redemption in his blood, according to the
riches of his grace, whereby he makes us accepted in the be-
loved. And herein he abounds towards us in all wisdom ;
Ephes. i. 8. This therefore is that which the gospel proposes
to us, as the especial object of our faith to the justification of
life.
But we may also in the same manner confirm the several
parts of the assertion distinctly.
1. The Lord Jesus Christ as proposed in the promise of the
gospel, is the peculiar object of faith to justification. There
are three sorts of testimonies wherby this is confirmed.
1. Those wherein it is positively asserted; as Acts x. 41.
" To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name,
whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins."
Christ believed in as the means and cause of the remission of
sins, is that which all the prophets give witness to. Acts xvi. 31.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
It is the answer of the Apostles to the jailor's inquiry; "Sirs,
what must I do to be saved ?" His duty in believing, and
the object of it, "the Lord Jesus Christ," is what they return
thereto, Acts iv. 12. " Neither is there salvation in any other;
for there is none other name under Heaven given among men
whereby we must be saved." That which is proposed to us
as the only way and means of our justification and salvation.
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 105
and that in opposition to all other ways, is the object of faith
to our justification; but this is Christ alone, exclusively to all
other things. This is testified to by Moses and the prophets,
the design of the whole Scripture being to direct the faith of
the church to the Lord Christ alone, for life and salvation.
Luke xxiv. 25, 26, 27.
2. All those wherein justifying faith is affirmed to be our
believing in him, or believing on his name, which are multi-
plied. Johni. 12. "He gave power to them to become the sons
of God, who believed on his name," iii. 16. " That whoso-
ever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life," ver. 36. " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life," vi. 29. " This is the work of God that ye believe on him
whom he hath sent," ver. 47. "He that believeth on me
hath everlasting life," vii. 38. " He that believeth on me, out
of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." So, ix. 35, 36,
37.; xi. 25. Acts xxvi. 18. " That they may receive forgive-
ness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified,
by faith that is in me," 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7. In all which places,
and many other, we are not only directed to place and fix
our faith on him, but the effect of justification is ascribed thereto.
So expressly, Acts xiii. 38, 39, which is what we design to
prove.
3. Those which give us such a description of the acts of
faith, as make him the direct and proper object of it. Such
are they wherein it is called a " receiving of him," John i. 12.
" To as many as received him," Col. Ti. 6. " As you have
received Christ Jesus the Lord." That which we receive by
faith is the proper object of it. And it is represented by their
looking to the brazen serpent when it was lifted up, who
were stung by fiery serpents, John iii. 14, 15.; xii. 32. Faith
is that act of the soul whereby convinced sinners, ready other-
wise to perish, look to Christ as he was made a propitiation
for their sins ; and they who so do shall not perish but have
everlasting life. He is therefore the object of our faith.
2. He is so as he is the ordinance of God to this end, which
consideration is not to be separated from our faith in him.
And this also is confirmed by several sorts of testimonies.
1. All those wherein the love and grace of God are proposed
as the only cause of giving Jesus Christ to be the way and
means of our recovery and salvation, whence they become, or
God in them, the supreme efficient cause of our justification,
John iii. 16. "God so loved the world that he gave his only
106
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not
perish, but have everlasting life," So Rom. v. 8. 1 John iv, 9,
10, " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemp-
tion that is in Christ," Rom. iii. 23. Ephes. i. 6, 7, 8. This
the Lord Christ directs our faith to continually, referring all
to him that sent him, and whose will he came to do. Heb. x. 5.
2. All those wherein God is said to set forth and propose
Christ, and to make him be for us, and to us, what he is so, to
the justification of life, Rom. iii. 25. " Whom God hath pro-
posed to be a propitiation." 1 Cor. i. 30. " Who of God is
made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification
and redemption." 2 Cor. v. 21. "He hath made him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the right-
eousness of God in him." Acts v. 35, &c. Wherefore in the
acting of faith in Christ to justification, we can no otherwise
consider him but as the ordinance of God to that end; he brings
nothing to us, does nothing for us, but what God appointed,
designed, and made him to be. And this must diligently be
considered, that by our regard by faith to the blood, the sa-
crifice, the satisfaction of Christ, we take off nothing from the
free grace, favour and love of God.
3. All those wherein the wisdom of God, in the contrivance
of this way of justification and salvatiofi is proposed to us:
Ephes. i. 7,8. "In whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace, wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom
and understanding." See Ephes. iii, 10,11. 1 Cor, i. 24.
The whole is comprised in that of the Apostle; " God was
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. v. 19, All that is done in
our reconciliation to God, as to the pardon of our sins, and
acceptance with him to life, was by the presence of God in
his grace, wisdom, and power in Christ, designing and effecting
of it.
Wherefore the Lord Christ proposed in the promise of the
gospel as the object of our faith to the justification of life, is
considered as the ordinance of God to that end. Hence the
love, the grace, and the wisdom of God in the sending and
giving of him, are comprised in that object; and not only the
actings of God in Christ towards us, but all his actings towards
the person of Christ himself to the same end belong thereto.
So as to his death; God set him forth to be a propitiation;
Rom, iii. 24. He spared him not but delivered him up for
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 107
US all, Rom. viii. 32. And therein laid all our sins upon him,
Isa. liii. 6. So he was raised for our justification, Rom. iv.
25, And our faith is in God who raised him from the dead,
Rom. X. 9, and in his exaltation. Acts v. 31. Which things com-
plete the record that God hath given of his Son, 1 John v. 10 — 12.
The whole is confirmed by the exercise of faith in prayer,
which is the soul's application of itself to God for the partici-
pation of the benefits of the mediation of Christ. And it is
called our access through him to the Father; Eph. ii. IS. Our
coming through him to the throne of grace, that we may obtain
mercy, and find grace to help in time of need, Heb. iv. 15, 16,
and through him, as both a high priest and sacrifice, Heb. x.
19 — 21. So do we bow our knees to the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, Ephes. iii. 14. This answers the experience of
all who know what it is to pray. We come therein in the
name of Christ, by him, through his mediation, to God even the
Father, to be through his grace, love and mercy, made par-
takers of what he has designed and promised to communicate
to poor sinners by him. And this represents the complete
object of our faith.
The due consideration of these things will reconcile and
reduce into a perfect harmony, whatever is spoken in the
Scripture concerning the object of justifying faith, or what we
are said to believe therewith. For whereas this is affirmed
of sundry things distinctly, none of them can be supposed to
be the entire adequate object of faith. But consider them all
in their relation to Christ, and they have all of them their
proper place therein; namely, the grace of God, which is the
cause; the pardon of sin, which is the effect; and the promises
of the gospel, which are the means of communicating the Lord
Christ and the benefits of his mediation to us.
CHAPTER H.
The nature of justifying faith.
That which we shall now inquire into, is the nature of justi-
fying faith ; or of faith in that act and exercise of it whereby
we are justified, or whereon justification according to God's
108
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
ordination and promise ensues. And the reader is desired to
take along with him a supposition of those things which we
have already ascribed to it, as it is sincere faith in general; as
also of what is required previously thereto, as to its especial
nature, work and duty in our justification. For we deny that
ordinarily and according to the method of God's proceeding
with us declared in the Scripture, wherein the rule of our duty
is prescribed, any one does, or can truly believe with faith
to justification, in whom the work of conviction before de-
scribed, has not been wrought. All descriptions or definitions
of faith that have not a respect thereto, are but vain specula-
tions. And hence some give us such definitions of faith, as it
is hard to conceive, that they ever asked of themselves, what
they do, in their believing on Jesus Christ for life and sal-
vation.
The nature of justifying faith with respect to that exercise
of it whereby we are justified, consists in the heart's approba-
tion of the way of justification and salvation of sinners by Jesus
Christ proposed in the gospel, as proceeding from the grace,
wisdom and love of God, with its acquiescence therein, as to
its own concernment and condition.
There needs no more for the explanation of this declaration
of the nature of faith, than what we have before proved con-
cerning its object ; and what may seem wanting thereto, will
be fully supplied in the ensuing confirmation of it. The
Lord Christ and his mediation, as the ordinance of God for
the recovery, life and salvation of sinners, is supposed as the
object of this faith. And they are all considered as an effect
of the wisdom, grace, authority, and love of God, with all their
actings in and towards the Lord Christ himself, in his suscep-
tion and discharge of his office. Hereto he constantly refers
all that he did and suff'ered, with all the benefits redounding
to the church thereby. Hence, as we observed before, some-
times the grace, or love, or especial mercy of God, sometimes
his actings in or towards the Lord Christ himself, in sending
him, giving him up to death, and raising him from the dead,
are proposed as the object of our faith to justification. But
they are so always with respect to his obedience and the atone-
ment that he made for sin. Neither are they so altogether
absolutely considered, but as proposed in the promises of the
gospel. Hence a sincere assent to the divine veracity in those
promises, is included in this approbation.
What belongs to the confirmation of this description of faith
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 109
shall be reduced to these four heads. (1) The declaration of
its contrary, or the nature of privative unbelief upon the pro-
posal of the gospel. For these things mutually illustrate one
another. (2) The declaration of the design and end of God in
and by the gospel. (3) The nature of faith's compliance with
that design, or its actings with respect thereto. (4) The order,
method, and way of believing as declared in the Scripture.
1. The gospel is the revelation or declaration of that way
of justification and salvation for sinners by Jesus Christ,
which God in infinite wisdom, love and grace, has prepared.
And upon a supposition of the reception thereof, it is accom-
panied with precepts of obedience, and promises of rewards.
Therein " the righteousness of God," that which he requires,
accepts and approves to salvation, " is revealed from faith unto
faith," Rom. i. 17. This is the record of God therein "that
he hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son,"
1 John V. 10. So John iii. 14 — 17. The words of this life,
Acts V. 20. All the counsel of God, Acts xx. 27. Wherefore in
the dispensation or preaching of the gospel, this way of salva-
tion is proposed to sinners, as the great effect of divine wisdom
and grace. Unbelief is the rejection, neglect, non admission,
or disapprobation of it, on the terms whereon, and for the ends
for which it is so proposed. The unbelief of the Pharisees
upon the preparatory preaching of John the Baptist is called
the "rejecting of the counsel of God against themselves," that
is, to their own ruin, Luke vii. 30. "They would none of my
counsel," is an expression to the same purpose, Prov. i. 30.
So is the "neglecting of this great salvation," Heb. ii. 3. the
not giving it that admission which the excellency of it requires.
A disallowing of Christ; the Stone ov u7r£?>oxifj.asav ol dixodofiowtii,
1 Pet. ii. 7, " which the builders disapproved of," as not meet
for that place and work whereto it was designed. Acts iv. 14.
This is unbelief. To disapprove of Christ and the way of sal-
vation by him, as not answering divine wisdom nor suited to
the end designed. So is it described by the refusing or not
receiving of him ; — all to the same purpose.
What is intended will be more evident, if we consider the
proposal of the gospel where it issued in unbelief, in the first
preaching of it, and where it continues still so to do.
1. Most of those who rejected the gospel by their unbelief,
did it under this notion, that the way of salvation and blessed-
ness proposed therein, was not a way answering divine good-
ness and power, such as they might safely confide in and trust
10
110 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
to. This the Apostle declares at large, 1 Cor. i; so he expresses
it, ver. 23, 24. "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto
them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power
of God, and the wisdom of God." That which they declared
to them in the preaching of the gospel was, that " Christ died
for our sins according to the Scripture," chap. xv. 3. Herein
they proposed him as the ordinance of God, as the great effect
of his wisdom and power for the salvation of sinners. But as
to those who continued in their unbelief, they rejected it as any
such way, esteeming it both weakness and folly. And there-
fore he describes the faith of them that are called, by their ap-
probation of the wisdom and power of God herein. The want
of a comprehension of the glory of God in this way of sal-
vation, and rejecting it thereon, is that unbelief which ruins
the souls of men, 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4.
So is it with all that continue unbelievers under the proposal
of the object of faith in the preaching of the gospel. They may
give an assent to the truth of it, so far as it is a mere act of the
mind; at least they find not themselves concerned to reject it.
Yea, they may assent to it with that temporary faith which we
described before, and perform many duties of religion thereon.
Yet they manifest that they are not sincere believers, that they
do not "believe with the heart unto righteousness," by many
things that are irreconcilable to, and inconsistent with justify-
ing faith. The inquiry therefore is, wherein the unbelief of
such persons, on account of which they perish, consists, and
what is the formal nature of it. It is not as was said, in the
want of an assent to the truths of the doctrine of the gospel;
for from such an assent are they said in many places of the
Scripture to believe, as has been proved. And this assent may
be so firm, and by various means so rooted in their minds, that
in testimony to it they may give their bodies to be burned; as
men also may do in the confirmation of a false persuasion.
Nor is it the want of an especial fiduciary application of the
promises of the gospel to themselves, and the belief of the
pardon of their own sins in particular. For this is not proposed
to them in the first preaching of the gospel, as that which they
are first to believe; and there may be a believing unto right-
eousness where this is not attained, Isa. I. 10. This will evi-
dence faith not to be true, but it is not formal unbelief Nor
is it the want of obedience to the precepts of the gospel in
duties of holiness and righteousness. For these commands as
JUSTIFYING FAITH. Ill
formally given in and by the gospel, belong only to them that
truly believe, and are justified thereon. That therefore which
is required to evangelical faith, wherein the nature of it consists,
ji as it is the foundation of all future obedience, is the heart's ap-
}] probaiio?i of the way of life and salvation by Jesus Christ,
proposed to it as the effect of the infinite wisdom, love, grace,
and goodness of God; and as that which is suited to all the
wants and whole design of guilty convinced sinners. This
such persons have not, and in the want thereof consists the
formal nature of unbelief For without this, no man is, or can
be influenced by the gospel to a relinquishment of sin, or en-
couraged to obedience, whatever they may do on other grounds
and motives that are foreign to the grace of it. And wherever
this cordial sincere approbation of the way of salvation by
Jesus Christ proposed in the gospel prevails, it will infallibly
produce both repentance and obedience.
If the mind and heart of a convinced sinner (for of such alone
we treat) be able spiritually to discern the wisdom, love, and
grace of God in this way of salvation, and be under the power
of that persuasion, he has the ground of repentance and obe-
dience which is given by the gospel. The receiving of Christ
mentioned in the Scripture, and whereby the nature of faith
in its exercise is expressed, I refer to the latter part of the de-
scription given concerning the soul's acquiescence in God, by
the way proposed.
Again, some there were at first, and such still continue to be,
who rejected not this way absolutely, and in the notion of it,
but comparatively, as reduced to practice, and so perished in
their unbelief They judged the way of their own righteous-
ness to be better, as that which might be more safely trusted
to, as more according to the mind of God and to his glory. So
did the Jews generally, the frame of whose minds the Apostle
represents, Rom. x. 3, 4. And many of them assented to the
doctrine of the gospel in general as true, howbeit they liked it
not in their hearts as the best way of justification and salva-
tion, but sought for them by the works of the law.
Wherefore unbelief in its formal nature consists in the want
of a spiritual discerning, and approbation of the way of salva-
tion by Jesus Christ, as an effect of the infinite wisdom, good-
ness and love of God. For where these are, the soul of a
convinced sinner cannot but embrace it, and adhere to it.
Hence also all acquiescence in this way, and trust and con-
fidence in committing the soul to it, or to God in it, and by it,
112 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
without which whatever is pretended of believing is but a
shadow of faith, is impossible to such persons. For they want
the foundation whereon alone they can be built. And the con-
sideration of this sufficiently manifests wherein the nature of
true evangelical faith consists.
2. The design of God in and by the gospel, with the work
and ofiice of faith with respect thereto, further confirms the
description given of it. That which God designs herein m the
first place, is not the justification and salvation of sinners. His
utmost complete end in all his counsels is his own glory; he
does "all things for himself," nor can he who is infinite do
otherwise. But in an especial manner he expresses this con-
cerning this way of salvation by Jesus Christ.
Particularly, He designed herein the glory of his righteous-
ness. " To declare his righteousness;" Rom. iii. 25. Of liis
love; "God so loved the world," John iii. 16. " Herein we
perceive the love of God that he laid down his life for us," 1
John iii. 16. Of his grace; "accepted to the praise of the glory
of his grace," Ephes. i. 5, 6. Of his wisdom; " Christ crucified,
the wisdom of God," 1 Cor. i. 24, "might be known by the
church the manifold wisdom of God," Ephes. iii. 10. Of his
power; "it is the power of God unto salvation," Rom. i. 16,
Of his faithfulness, Rom. iv. 16. For God designed herein,
not only the reparation of all that glory, whose declaration
was impeached and obscured by the entrance of sin, but also a
further exaltation and more eminent manifestation of it, as to
the degrees of its exaltation, and some especial instances before
concealed, Ephes. iii. 9. And ail this is called " the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ," whereof faith is the behold-
ing, 2 Cor. iv. 6.
3. This being the principal design of God in the way of
justification and salvation by Christ proposed in the gospel,
that which on our part is required to a participation of the
benefits of it, is the ascription of that glory to God which he
designs so to exalt. The acknowledgment of all these glo-
rious properties of the divine nature, as manifested in the pro-
vision and proposition of this way of life, righteousness and
salvation, with an approbation of the way itself as an effect of
them, and that which is safely to be trusted to, is that which is
required of us; and this is faith or believing. "Being strong
in faith he gave glory to God," Rom. iv. 22. And this is in
the nature of the weakest degree of sincere faith. And no
other grace, work or duty, is suited to this, or firstly and directly
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 113
of that tendency, but only consequentially and in the way of
gratitude. And although I cannot wholly assent to him who
afiirms that faith, in the Epistles of Paul, is nothing but, " an
exalted sentiment of the power, justice, goodness, and covenant-
faithfulness of God," existimatio magnifice sentiens de Dei
potentia, justitia, bonitate, et si quid promiserit in eo prse-
stando constantia; because it is too general and not limited
to the way of salvation by Christ, his "elect in whom he will /
be glorified," yet has it much of the nature of faith in it.*\«*
Wherefore I say, that hence we may both learn the nature of
faith, and whence it is that faith alone is required to our justi-
fication. The reason of it is, because this alone is that grace
or duty whereby we do or can give to God that glor^^ which he
designs to manifest and exalt in and by Jesus Christ. Faith
in the sense we inquire after, is the heart's approbation of, and
consent to the way of life and salvation of sinners by Jesus \
Christ, as that, wherein the glory of the righteousness, wisdom,
grace, love, and mercy of God is exalted, the praise whereof
it ascribes to him, and rests in it, as to the ends of it, namely,
justification, life and salvation. It is to give "glory to God,"
Rom. iv. 20, to "behold his glory as in a glass," or the gospel
wherein it is represented to us, 2 Cor. iii. 18; to have in our
hearts the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv. 6. The contrary makes God
a liar, and thereby despoils him of the glory of all those holy
properties which lie this way designed to manifest, 1 John v. 10.
And if I mistake not, this is that to which the experience of
them that truly believe, when they are out of the heats of dis-
putation, will give testimony.
4. To understand the nature of justifying faith aright, or the
act and exercise of saving faith in order to our justification,
which are properly inquired after, we must consider the order
of it, first the things which are necessarily previous to it, and
then what it is to believe with respect to them. As,
1. The state of a convinced sinner; who is the only subjec-
tum capax Justificationis. This has been spoken to already;
and the necessity of its precedency to the orderly proposal and
receiving of evangelical righteousness for justification, demon-
strated. If we lose a respect to this, we lose our best guide
towards the discovery of the nature of faith. Let no man
think to understand the gospel, who knows nothing of the law.
God's constitution and the nature of the things themselves,
have given the law the precedency with respect to sinners;
10*
114
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
for " by the law is the knowledge of sin." And gospel faith
is the soul's acting according to the mind of God for deliver-
ance from that state and condition which it is cast under by
the law. And all those descriptions of faith which abound
in the writings of learned men, which do not at least include
in them a virtual respect to this state and condition, or the
work of the law on the consciences of sinners, are all of them
vain speculations. There is nothing in this whole doctrine
that I will more firmly adhere to, than the necessity of the
convictions mentioned previous to true believing, without
which not one line of it can be understood aright, and men do
but beat the air in their contentions about it. See Rom. iii.
21—24.
2. We suppose herein a sincere assent to all divine revela-
tions, whereof the promises of grace and mercy by Christ are
an especial part. This Paul supposed in Agrippa when he
would have won him over to faith in Christ Jesus. "King
Agrippa believest thou the prophets? I know that thou be-
lievest." Acts xxvi. 27. And this assent which respects the
promises of the gospel, not as they contain, propose, and ex-
hibit the Lord Christ and the benefits of his mediation to us,
but as divine revelations of infallible truth, is true and sincere
in its kind, as we described it before under the notion of tem-
porary faith. But as it proceeds no further, as it includes no
act of the will or heart, it is not that faith whereby we are
justified. However it is required thereto, and is included
therein.
3. The proposal of the gospel according to the mind of God
is hereunto supposed: that is, that it be preached according
to God's appointment. For not only the gospel itself, but the
dispensation or preaching of it in the ministry of the church is
ordinarily required to believing. This the Apostle asserts, and
proves the necessity of it at large, Rom. x. 11 — 17. Herein
the Lord Christ and his mediation with God, the only way
and means for the justification and salvation of lost convinced
sinners, as the product and effect of divine wisdom, love, grace
and righteousness, is revealed, declared, proposed, and offered
to such sinners. For therein is " the righteousness of God
revealed from faith to faith," Rom. i. 17. The glory of God
is represented as "in a glass," 2 Cor. iii. IS, and " life and
immortality are brought to light through the gospel," 2 Tim.
i. 10. Heb. ii. 3. Wherefore,
4. The persons who are required to believe, and whose im-
JUSTIFYING FAITH.
115
mediate duty it is so to do, are those who really in their own
consciences are brought to make the inquiries mentioned in
the Scripture; What shall we do? What shall we do to be
saved? How shall we fly from the wrath to come? Where-
withal shall we appear before God? How shall we answer
what is laid to our charge? Or such as being sensible of the
guilt of sin, seek for a righteousness in the sight of God, Acts
ii. 38; xvi. 30, 31. Micah. vi. 6, 7. Isa. xxxv. 4. Heb. vi. 18.
On these suppositions the command and direction given to
men being " believe and you shall be saved," the inquiry is,
what is that act or work of faith, whereby they may obtain a
real interest or propriety in the promises of the gospel, and the
things declared in them to their justification before God?
And 1. It is evident from what has been discoursed, that it
does not consist in, that it is not to be fully expressed by, any
one single habit or act of the mind or will distinctly whatever.
For there are such descriptions given of it in the Scripture,
such things are proposed as the object of it, and such is the
experience of all that sincerely believe, as no one single act
either of the mind or will, can answer to. Nor can an exact
method of those acts of the soul which are concurrent therein
be prescribed. Only what is essential to it is manifest.
2. That which in order of nature seems to have the prece-
dency is the assent of the mind to that which the Psalmist
betakes himself to in the first place, for relief, under a sense of
sin and trouble, Psal. cxxx. 3, 4. "If thou Lord shouldst
mark iniquity, 0 Lord, who shall stand?" The sentence of
the law and judgment of conscience lie against him as to any
acceptation with God. Therefore he despairs in himself, of
standing in judgment, or being acquitted before him. In this
state that which the soul first fixes on as to its relief is, that
there is forgiveness with God. This asdeclared in the gospel,
is, that God in his love and grace will pardon and justify guilty
sinners through the blood and mediation of Christ. So it is
proposed, Rom. iii. 23, 24. The assent of the mind hereto as
proposed in the promise of the gospel, is the root of faith, the
foundation of all that the soul does in believing. Nor is there
any evangelical faith without it. But yet consider it abstract-
edly as a mere act of the mind, the essence and nature of jus-
tifying faith does not consist solely therein, though it cannot
be without it. But,
2. This is accompanied in sincere believing with an appro-
bation of the way of deliverance and salvation proposed, as an
*'
116 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
effect of divine grace, wisdom and love, wliereon tiie heart
rests in it, and applies itself to it according to the mind of
God. This is that faith whereby we are justified; which I
shall further evince by showing what is included in it, and
inseparable from it.
1. It includes in it a sincere renunciation of all other ways
and means for the attainingof righteousness, life and salvation.
This is essential to faith. Acts iv. 12. Hos. xiv. 2, 3. Jerem.
iii. 23. Psal. Ixxi. 16. "I will make mention of thy right-
eousness, of thine only." When a person is in the condition
before described, (and such alone are called immediately to
believe, Matth. ix. 13.; xi. 28. 1 Tim. i. 15.) many things
will present themselves to him for his relief; particularly his
own righteousness, Rom. x. 3. A renunciation of them all as
to any hope or expectation of relief from them, belongs to
sincere believing, Isa. 1. 10, 11.
2. There is in it the will's consent, whereby the soul betakes
itself cordially and sincerely, as to all its expectation of par-
don of sin and righteousness before God, to the way of salva-
tion proposed in the gospel. This is that which is called coining
to Christ, and receivmg of him, whereby true justifying faith
is so often expressed in the Scripture; or as it is peculiarly called
believing in him, or believing on his name. The whole is ex-
pressed, John xiv. 6. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me."
3. An acquiescence of the heart in God, as the author and
principal cause of the way of salvation prepared; as acting in
a way of sovereign grace and mercy towards sinners, " who
by him do believe in God who raised him up from the dead,
and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God,"
1 Pet. i. 21. The heart of a sinner herein gives to God the
glory of all those holy properties of his nature which he de-
signed to manifest in and by Jesus Christ. See Isa. xlii. 1 ;
chap. xlix. 3. And this acquiescence of the heart in God, is
that which is the immediate root of that waiting, patience,
long-suffering and hope, which are the proper acts and effects
of justifying faith, Heb. vi. 12, 15, 18, 19.
4. Trust in God, or the grace and mercy of God in and
through the Lord Christ as set forth to be a propitiation
through/aith in his blood, belongs hereto, or necessarily ensues
hereon. For the person called to believing, is (1) convinced of
sin, and exposed to wrath. (2) Has nothing else to trust to for
help and relief. (3) Actually renounces all other things that
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 117
tender themselves to that end; and therefore without some act
of trust the soul must lie under actual despair, which is ut-
terly inconsistent with faith, or the choice and approbation
of the way of salvation before described. 5. The most fre-
quent declaration of the nature of faith in the Scripture, espe-
cially in the Old Testament, is by this trust, and that because
it is that act of it which composes the soul, and brings it to all
the rest it can attain. For all our rest in this world is from
trust in God. And the especial object of this trust, so far as
it belongs to the nature of that faith whereby we are justified,
is God in Christ reconciling the world to himself For this is
respected where his goodness, his mercy, his grace, his name,
his faithfulness, his power, are expressed, or any of them, as
that which it immediately relies upon. For they are no way
the object of our trust, nor can be, but on the account of the
covenant which is confirmed and ratified in and by the blood
of Christ alone.
Whether this trust or confidence shall be esteemed of the
essence of faith, or as that which, on the first fruit and working
of it, we are found exercising, we need not positively deter-
mine. I place it therefore as that which belongs to justifying
faith, and is inseparable from it. For if all we have spoken
before concerning faith may be comprised under the notion of
a firm assent and persuasion, yet it cannot be so, if any such
assent be conceivable exclusive of this trust.
This trust is that whereof many divines make special mercy
to be the peculiar object; and that especial mercy to be such
as to include in it the pardon of our own sins. This by their
adversaries is fiercely opposed, and that on such grounds as
manifest that they do not believe that there is any such state
attainable in this life ; and that if there were, it would not be
of any use to us, but rather be a means of security and negli-
gence in our duty; wherein they betray how great is the ignor-
ance of these things in their own minds. But mercy may be
said to be especial two ways. (1) In itself, and in opposition
to common mercy. (2) With respect to him that believes. In
the first sense especial mercy is the object of faith as justifying.
For no more is intended by it, but the grace of God setting
forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
Rom. iii. 23, 24. And faith in this especial mercy, is that
which the Apostle calls our "receiving of the atonement,''
Rom. V. 11. That is our approbation of it, and adherence to
it, as the great effect of Divine wisdom, goodness, faithfulness,
118 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
love and grace, which will therefore never fail them who put
their trust in it. In the latter sense it is looked on as the par-
don of our own sins in particular, the especial mercy of God to
our souls. That this is the object of justifying faith, that a
man is bound to believe this in order of nature antecedent to
his justification I deny; nor yet do I know of any testimony or
safe experience whereby it may be confirmed. But yet those
who deny that an undeceiving belief hereof is to be attained
in this life; or that it is our duty to believe the pardon of our
own sins, and the especial love of God in Christ, in the order
and method of our duty and privileges limited and determined
in the gospel, so as to come to the full assurance of them,
(though I will not deny but that peace with God which is in-
separable from justification may be without them) seem not to
be much acquainted with the design of God in the gospel, the
efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, the nature and work of faith
or their own duty, nor the professed experience of believers
recorded in the Scripture. See Rom. v. 1 — 5. Heb. x. 2, 10,20,
21. Psal. xlvi. 1, 2. Psal. cxxxviii. 7, 8, &c. Yet it is granted
that all these things are rather fruits or eflfects of faith, as under
exercise and improvement, than of the essence of it, as it is the
instrument in our justification.
And the trust before mentioned, which is either essential to
justifying faith, or inseparable from it, is excellently expressed
by Bernard,* " I look at three things, on which all my hope
depends; the love which has adopted, the truth which has pro-
mised, and the power which fulfils. Let my foolish thoughts
murmur as they will, saying, who then art thou? and how
great is that glory, and with what merits hopest thou to obtain
it? With confidence I shall reply, ' I know in whom I have
believed,' and am assured that in love he has adopted me ;
that he is true to his promises; that he is powerful in fulfil-
ment ; for he may do whatever he will. This is a three-fold
cord, which cannot easily be broken. Let us firmly hold to it,
when it is let down to us here on earth from our country
* Tria considero in quibus tota mea spes consistit ; charitatcm adoptionis, ve-
ritatem promissionis, potestatem redditionis. Murmuret jam quantum voluerit
insipiens cogitatio mea, dicens quis enim es tu, et quanta est ilia gloria, quibusve
nieritis hanc obtinere speras ? et ego fiducialiter respondebo, scio cui credidi, et
certus sum quia in charitate adoptavit me, quia verax in promissione, quia potens
in exhibitione ; licet enira ei facere quod voluerit. Hie est funiculus triplex, qui
difRculter rumpitur, quem nobis ex patria nostra in hanc terram usque demissum,
firmiter obsecro teneamus, et ipse nos sublevet, ipse nos trahat et pertrahat usque
ad conspecturn gloriae magni Dei, qui est benedictus insecuia. De Evangel. Ser. 3.
JUSTIFYING FAITH. ] 19
above, until it raise us and draw us up even to the presence
of the glory of the great God, who is blessed for ever !"
Concerning this faith and trust it is earnestly pleaded by
many, that obedience is included in it. But as to the way
and manner thereof they variously express themselves. So-
cinus and those who follow him absolutely make obedience to
be the essential form of faith, which is denied by Episcopius.
The Papists distinguish between faith informed, and faith
formed by charity, which comes to the same purpose. For
both are built on this supposition, that there may be true evan-
gelical faith, that which is required as our duty, and conse-
quently is accepted of God, that may contain all in it which
is comprised in the name and duty of faith, that may be with-
out charity or obedience, and so be useless. For the Socinians
do not make obedience to be the essence of faith absolutely,
but as it justifies. And so they plead to this purpose, that
•'faith without works is dead." But to suppose that a dead
faith, or that faith which is dead, is that faith which is required
of us in the gospel in the way of duty, is a monstrous imagina-
tion. Others plead for obedience, charity, the love of God, to
be included in the nature of faith; but plead not directly that
this obedience is the form of faith, but that which belongs to
the perfection of it, as it is justifying. Nor yet do they say
that by this obedience, a contitmed course of works and obe-
dience, as though that were necessary to our first justification,
is required; but only a sincere active purpose of obedience;
and thereon, as the manner of our days is, load them with re-
proaches who are otherwise minded, if they knew who they
were. For how impossible it is according to their principles
who believe justification by faith alone, that justifying faith
should be without a sincere purpose of heart to obey God in
all things, I shall briefly declare. For (1) they believe that
faith is not of ourselves, it is " the gift of God;" yea that it is
a grace wrought in the hearts of men by the exceeding great-
ness of his power. And to suppose such a grace dead, inac-
tive, unfruitful, not operative to the great end of the glory of
God, and the transforming of the souls of them that receive
it into his image, is a reflection on the wisdom, goodness and
love of God himself. (2) That this grace is in them a principle
of spiritual life; which in the habit of it as resident in the
heart, is not really distinguished from that of all other grace
whereby we live to God. So, that there should be faith habit-
ually in the heart, (I mean that evangelical faith we inquire
120 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
after,) or actually exercised, where there is not a habit of all
other graces, is utterly impossible. Neither is it possible that
there should be any exercise of this faith to justification, but
where the mind is prepared, disposed, and determined to uni-
versal obedience. And therefore (3) It is denied, that any
faith, trust, or confidence which may be imagined, so as to be
absolutely separable from, and have its whole nature consist-
ent with the absence of, all other graces, is that faith which is
the especial gift of God, and which in the gospel is required of
us in a way of duty. And whereas some have said, that " men
may believe, and place their firm trust in Christ for life and
salvation, and yet not be justified;" it is a position so destruc-
tive of the gospel, and so full of scandal to all pious souls,
and contains such an express denial of the record that God
hath given concerning his Son Jesus Christ, that I wonder any
person of sobriety and learning should be surprised into it.
And whereas they plead the experience of multitudes who
profess this firm faith and confidence in Christ, and yet are not
justified; it is true indeed, but nothing to their purpose. For
whatever they profess, not only, not one of them does so in
the sight and judgment of God, where this matter is to be tried,
but it is no difficult matter to convict them of the folly and
falseness of this profession, by the light and rule of the gospel,
even in their own consciences if they would attend to instruc-
tion.
Wherefore we say the faith whereby we are justified, is such
as is not found in any but those who are made partakers of the
Holy Ghost, and by him united to Christ, whose nature is re-
newed, and in whom there is a principle of all grace and pur-
pose of obedience. Only we say it is not any other grace, as
charity and the like, nor any obedience that gives life and form
to this faith; but it is this faith that gives life and efficacy to
all other graces, and form to all evangelical obedience. Neither
does any thing hence accrue to our adversaries, who would
have all those graces which are, in their root and principle at
least, present ui all that are to be justified, to have the same
influence upon our justification as faith has; or who say that
we are justified by faith alone, and in explication of it, in an-
swer to the reproaches of the Romanists, say we are justified
by faith alone, but not by that faith which is alone; — that we
intend by faith all other graces and obedience also. For besides
that the nature of no other grace is capable of that office
which is assigned to faith in our justification, nor can be as-
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 121
sumed into a society in operation with it, namely, to receive
Christ, and the promises of life by him, and to give glory to
God on their account; so when they can give us any testimony
of Scripture assigning our justification to any other grace, or
all graces together, or all the fruits of them, as it is assigned
to faith, they shall be attended to.
And this in particular is to be affirmed of repentance, con-
cerning which it is most vehemently urged, that it is of the
same necessity to our justification as faith is. For this they
say is easily proved from testimonies of Scripture innumerable,
which call all men to repentance that will be saved; especially
those two eminent places are insisted on, Acts ii. 38, 39; iii. 16.
But that which they have to prove, is not that it is of the
same necessity with faith to them that are to be justified, but
that it is of the same use with faith in their justification.
Baptism in that place of the Apostle, Acts ii. 38, 39, is joined
with faith no less than repentance. And in other places it
is expressly put into the same condition. Hence most of the
ancients concluded that it was no less necessary to salvation
than faith or repentance itself. Yet never did any of them as-
sign it the same use in justification with faith. But it is plead-
ed, whatever is a necessary condition of the new covenant, is
also a necessary condition of justification. For otherwise a
man might be justified, and continuing in his justified estate
not be saved, for want of that necessary condition. For by a
necessary condition of the new covenant they understand that
without which a man cannot be saved. But of this nature is
repentance as well as faith, and so it is equally a condition of
our justification. The ambiguity of the signification of the
word condition casts much disorder on the present inquiry, in
the discourses of some men. But to pass it by at present, I
say, final perseverance is a necessary condition of the new co-
venant; wherefore by this rule it is also, of justification. They
say some things are conditions absolutely, such as are faith
and repentance, and a purpose of obedience: some are so on
some supposition only; namely, that a man's life be continued
in this world; such is a course in obedience and good works,
and perseverance to the end. Wherefore I say then, that on
supposition that a man lives in this world, perseverance to the
end is a necessary condition of his justification. And if so, no
man can be justified whilst he is in this world. For a condi-
tion suspends that whereof it is a condition from existence,
until it be accomplished. It is then to no purpose to dispute
11
i'
122 JUSTIFYING FAITH.
any longer about justification, if indeed no man is nor can be
justified in this life. But how contrary this is to Scripture and
experience is known.
If it be said that final perseverance, which is so express a
condition of salvation in the new covenant, is not indeed the
condition of our first justification, but it is the condition of the
continuation of our justification; then they yield up their grand
position, that whatever is a necessary condition of the new co-
venant, is a necessary condition of justification; for it is that
which they call the first justification alone which we treat
about. . And that the continuation of our justification depends
solely on the same causes with our justification itself, shall be
afterwards declared. But it is not yet proved, nor ever will
be, that whatever is required in them that are to be justified, is
a condition whereon their justification is immediately suspend-
ed. We allow that alone to be a condition of justification
which has an influence of causality thereto, though it be but
the causality of an instrument. This we ascribe to faith alone.
And because we do so, it is pleaded that we ascribe more in
our justification to ourselves than they do by whom we are op-
posed. For we ascribe the efficiency of an instrument herein
to our own faith; when they say only that it is a condition, or
causa si7ie qua no7i, of our justification. But I judge that
grave and wise men ought not to give so much to the defence
fof the cause they have undertaken, seeing they cannot but
know indeed the contrary. For after they have given the spe-
cious name of a conditioji and a causa sine qua non, to faith,
they immediately take all other graces and works of obedience
into the same state with it, and the same use in justification;
and after this seeming gold has been cast tor awhile into the
fire of disputation, there comes out tlie calf of a personal in-
herent righteousness, whereby men are justified before God,
virtute foederis Evangelici; in virtue of the Gospel covenant;
for as for the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us, it is
gone into heaven, and they know not what has become of it.
Having given this brief declaration of the nature of justify-
ing faith, and the acts of it, (as I suppose sufficient to my pre-
sent design) I shall not trouble myself to give an accurate de-
finition of it. What are my thoughts concerning it, will be
better understood by what has been spoken, than by any pre-
cise definition I can give. And the truth is, definitions of jus-
tifying faith have been so multiplied by learned men, and in so
great variety, and such a manifest inconsistency among some
JUSTIFYING FAITH. 123
of them, that they have been of no advantage to the truth,
but occasions of new controversies and divisions, whilst every
one has laboured to defend the accuracy of his own definition,
when yet it may be difficult for a true believer to find any thing
corresponding with his own experience in them; which kind
of definitions in these things, I have no esteem for. I know no
man that has laboured in this argument about the nature of faith
more than Doctor Jackson; yet when he has done all, he gives
us a definition of justifying faith, which I know few that will
subscribe to; yet is it in the main scope of it both pious and
sound. For he tells us: " Here at length we may define the
faith by which the just do live, to be a firm and constant ad-
herence to the mercies and loving kindness of the Lord, or ge-
nerally to the spiritual food exhibited in his sacred word, as
much better than this life itself, and all the contentments it is
capable of, grounded on a taste or relish of their sweetness,
wrought in the soul or heart of a man by the Spirit of Christ."
To which he adds, " The terms for the most part are the pro-
phet David's, not metaphorical, as some may fancy, much less
equivocal, but proper and honiogeneal to the subject defined."
Vol. i. book 4. chap. 9. For the lively Scriptural expressions
of faith, by receiving of Christ, leaning on him, rolling our-
selves or our burden on him, tasting how gracious the Lord
is, and the like, which of late have been reproached, yea blas-
phemed by many, I may have occasion to speak of them after-
wards; as also to manifest that they convey a better under-
standing of the nature, work, and object of justifying faith, to
the minds of men spiritually enlightened, than the most accu-
rate definitions that many pretend to; some whereof are de-
structive and exclusive of them all.
CHAPTER HL
THE USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION ; ITS ESPECIAL OBJECT FURTHER
CLEARED.
The description before given of justifying faith sufficiently
manifests of what use it is in justification. Nor shall I in ge-
neral add much to what may be thence observed to that pur-
124 USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
pose. But whereas this use of it has been expressed with
some variety, and several ways of it asserted inconsistent with
one another, they must be considered in our passage. And I
shall do it with all brevity possible; for these things lead not
in any part of the controversy about the nature of justifica-
tion, but are merely subservient to other conceptions concern-
ing it. When men have fixed their apprehensions about the
principal matters in controversy, they express what concerns
the use of faith in an accommodation thereto. Supposing such
to be the nature of justification as they assert, it must be grant-
ed that the use of faith therein, must be what they plead for.
And if what is peculiar to any in the substance of the doctrine
be disproved, they cannot deny but that their notions about the
use of faith fall to the ground. Thus it is with all who affirm
faith to be either the instrument, or the condition, or the causa
sine qua non, or the preparation and disposition of the subject,
or a meritorious cause by way of condecency or congruity, in
and of our justification. For all these notions of the use of
faith are suited and accommodated to the opinions of men con-
cerning the nature and principal causes of justification. Neither
can any trial or determination be made, as to their truth and
propriety, but upon a previous judgment concerning those
causes, and the whole nature of justification itself. Whereas
therefore it were vain and endless to plead the principal matter
in controversy upon every thing that occasionally belongs to it;
and so, by the title to the whole inheritance, on every cottage
that is built on the premises, I shall briefly speak to these va-
rious conceptions about the use of faith in our justification,
rather to find out and give an understanding of what is intend-
ed by them, than to argue about their truth and propriety,
which depends on that wherein the substance of the contro-
versy consists.
Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously aflirmed
faith to be the ijisJrunisjxlaIjJMJLS£^ot' our justification. So it is
expressed to be in many of the public confessions of their
churches. This notion of theirs concerning the nature and
use of faith, was from the first opposed by those of the Roman
church. Afterwards it was denied also by the Socinians, as
either false or improper. And of late this expression is dis-
liked by some among ourselves; v/herein they follow Episco-
pius, Curcellaeus, and others of that way. Those who are sober
and moderate rather decline this notion and expression as im-
proper, than reject them as untrue. And our safest course in
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION. 125
these cases is to consider what is the thing or matter intended.
If that be agreed upon, he deserves best of the truth who parts
with strife about propriety of expressions, before it be meddled
with. Tenacious pleading about them will surely render our
contentions endless; and none will ever want an appearance
of probability to give them countenance in what they pretend.
If our design in teaching be the same with that of the Scrip-
ture, namely, to inform the minds of believers, and convey the
light of the knowledge of God in Christ to them, we must be
contented sometimes to make use of such expressions, as will
scarce pass the ordeal of arbitrary rules and distinctions through
the whole compass of notional and artificial sciences. And
those who without more ado reject the instrumentality of faith
in our justification as an unscriptural notion, as though it were
easy for them with one breath to blow away the reasons and
arguments of so many learned men as have pleaded for it, may
not, I think, do amiss to review the grounds of their confidence.
For the question being only concerning what is intended by it,
it is not enough that the term or word itself of an instrument
is not found to this purpose in the Scripture. For on the same
ground we may reject a Trinity of persons in the Divine es-
sence, without an acknowledgment whereof, not one line of the
Scripture can be rightly understood.
Those who assert faith to be as the instrumental cause in our
justification, do it with respect to tw_o ends. For first they de-
sign thereby to declare the meaning of those expressions in the
Scripture, wherein we are said to be justified jtistti., absolute-
ly; which must denoie eiihex instriimentu7n,aut formam, aut <
niodum actionis. Xoyi^of^sOa oui^ iri^ativ bcxaiovaOat etvOpcortov; Rom.
iii. 2S. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith."
So fita ftt,iyti(^i, ver. 22. ix Ttiatsur, Rom. i. 17. Gal. iii. 8. Sia tru
"TToatiMi. Ephes. ii. 8. sx rct.a'tiui, xav 8ca -frji THatsug, Rom. iii. 22, 30.
That IS fide, ex fide, per fidem; which we can express only by
faith, or through faith. Propter fidem, ox Sia 7ti,ativ,for our faith,
we are no where said to be justified. The inquiry is, what is
the most proper, lightsome, and convenient way of declaring
the meaning of these expressions. This the generality of Pro-
testants judge to be by an instrumental cause. For some kind
of causality they plainly intimate, whereof the lowest and
meanest is that which is instrumental. For they are used of
faith in our justification before God, and of no other grace or
duty whatever. Wherefore the proper work or office of faith
in our justification is intended by them. And ^ta is no where
*1I
126
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
?
used in the whole New Testament with a genitive case, (nor
in any other good author) but it denotes an instrumental effi-
ciency at least. In the Divine works of the holy Trinity, the
operation of the second person, who is in them a principal
efficient, yet is sometimes expressed thereby; it may be to de-
note the order of operation in the holy Trinity answering the
order of subsistence, though it be appUed to God absolutely
or the Father; Rom. xi. 35. 8i' drtov, "by him are all things."
Again i% ipyav vo/xov, and ix rtKr^-ftoj are directly opposed. Gal. iii.
2. But when it is said that a man is "not justified, i^ipy^^v
vofiov, by the works of the law," it is acknowledged by all
that the meaning of the expression is to exclude all efficiency
in every kind of such works from our justification. It follows,
therefore, that where in opposition hereto, we are said to be
justified Ix Tiiatia^, " by faith;" an instrumental efficiency is
intended. Yet will I not therefore make it my controversy
with any, that faith is properly an instrument, or the instru-
mental cause in or of our justification; and so divert into an
impertinent contest about the nature and kinds of instruments
and instrumental causes, as they are metaphysically hunted
with a confused cry of futile terms and distinctions. But this
I judge, that among all those notions of things which may be
taken from common use and understanding to represent to our
minds the meaning and intention of the Scriptural expressions
I so often used, Tuatei, ix Tuatii^i, hia rtKJtfioc, there is none so
proper as this of an instrument or instrumental cause, seeing
, a causality is included in them, and that of any other kind cer-
tainly excluded; nor has it any of its own.
But it may be said, that iffaith.be the instrumental cause of
justification, it is either the instrument of God, or the instru-
'■^ ment of believers themselves. That it is not the instrument
of God is plain, in that it is a duty which he prescribes to us;
it is an act of our own; and it is we that believe, not God; nor
can any act of ours be the instrument of his work. And if it
be our instrument, seeing an efficiency is ascribed to it, then
are we the efficient causes of our own justification in some
sense, and may be said to justify ourselves; which is deroga-
tory to the grace of God, and the blood of Christ.
I confess that I lay not much weight on exceptions of this
nature. For (1) notwithstanding what is said herein, the
Scripture is express, that " God justifieth us by faith." " It is
one God which shall justify the circumcision U .tKH'f&.j, (by faith)
and the uncircumcision, 6ta t»jj rttattcoj, through or by faith,"
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION. 127
Rom. iii. 30. "The Scripture foreseeing that God would jus-
tify the heathen through faith," Gal. iii. 8. As he pnrifieth the
hearts of men by faith, Acts xv. 9. Wherefore faith in some
sense may be said to be the instrument of God in our justifica-
tion; both as it is the means and way ordained and appointed
by him on our part, whereby we shall be justified, as also
because he bestows it on us, and works it in us to this end
that we may be justified; for " by grace we are saved, through
faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God," Ephes.
iii. S. If any one shall now say, that on these accounts, or
with respect to Divine ordination and operation concurring
to our justification, faith is the instrument of God in its place
and way, (as the gospel also is, Rom. i. l(j, and the ministers
of it, 2 Cor. V. 18. 1 Tim. iv. 6, and the sacraments also, Rom.
iv. 11. Tit. iii. 5, in their several places and kinds) to our jus-
tification, it may be he will contribute to a right conception of
the work of God herein, as much as those shall by whom it is
denied.
But that which is principally intended is, that it is the instru-
ment of them that believe. Neither yet are they said hereon
to justify themselves. For whereas it neither really produces
the effect of justification by a physical operation, nor can do
so, it being a pure sovereign act of God; nor is morally any
way meritorious thereof, nor disposes the subject wherein it is
to the introduction of an inherent formal cause of justification,
there being no such thing ifi rerutn naiura, nor has any other
physical or moral respect to the effect of jiastification, but what
arises merely from the constitution and appointment of God,
there is no colour of reason from the instrumentality of faith
asserted, to ascribe the effect of justification to any, but to the
principal efficient cause, which is God alone, and from whom
it proceeds in a way of free and sovereign grace, disposing the
order of things, and the relation of them one to another, as
seems good to him. i^kxaiovixivoi Su^pm^ tri av-tov ;^api.T't, Rom. iii.
24. 5ia trii TTiattoji iv rco tov Xpiatov ^cixati, ver. 25. It is there-
fore the ordinance of God prescribing our duty, that we may
be justified freely by his grace, having its use and operation
towards that end after the manner of an instrument, as we
shall see further immediately. Wherefore so far as I can dis-
cern, they contribute nothing to the real understandmg of
this truth, who deny faith to be the instrumental cause of our
justification, and oti other grounds assert it to be the condition
thereof, unless they can prove that this is a more natural ex-
128 USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
position of those expressions Tttatsi, ix rtia-csc^;, 6ta ttji fticmsui,
which is the first thing to be inquired after. For all that we
do in this matter is but to endeavour a right understanding of
Scripture propositions and expressions, unless we intend to
wander extra oleas, and lose ourselves in a maze of uncertain
conjectures.
Secondly, they designed to declare the use of faith in jus-
tification, expressed in the Scripture by apprehending and re-
ceiving of Christ, or his righteousness, and remission of sins
thereby. The words whereby this use of faith in our justifica-
tion is expressed are xa^fiavu, 7tapa-Kay.6avu, and xata'Kafi^avi^. And
the constant use of them in the Scripture is to take or receive
what is offered, tendered, given or granted to us; or to appre-
hend and lai/ hold of any thing thereby to make it our own,
as sTtaafi^avofiai, is also used in the same sense, Heb. ii. 16. So
are we said by faith to receive Christ, John i. 12. Col. ii. 6.
"The abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness," Rom.
v. 17. '-The word of promise," Acts ii. 41. " The word of
God," Acts viii. 14; 1 Thess. i. 6; ii. 13. "The atonement"
made by the blood of Christ, Rom. v. 11. "The forgiveness
of sins," Acts x. 43; xxvi. IS. " The promise of the Spirit,"
Gai. iii. 14. "The promises," Heb. ix. 15. There is there-
fore nothing that concurs to our justification, but we receive it
by faith. And unbelief is expressed by not receiving, John
i. 11; iii. 11; xii. 48; xiv. 17. Wherefore the object of faith
in our justification, that whereby we are justified, is tendered,
granted, and given to us of God, the use of faith being to lay
hold upon it, to receive it, so that it may be our own. What
we receive of outward things that are so given to us, we do
it by our hand, which is therefore the instrument of that re-
ception, that whereby we apprehend or lay hold of any thing
to appropriate it to ourselves; and that because this is the pe-
culiar office which by nature it is assigned to among all the
members of the body. Other uses it has, and other members
on other accounts may be as useful to the body as it; but it
alone is the instrument of receiving and apprehending that
which being given, is to be made our own and to abide with us.
Whereas therefore the righteousness wherewith we are justi-
fied is the gift of God, which is tendered to us in the promise
of the gospel, the use and office of faith being to receive, ap-
prehend, or lay hold of and appropriate this righteousness, I
know not how it can be better expressed than by an instru-
ment, nor by what notion of it, more light of understanding
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION. 129
may be conveyed to our minds. Some may suppose otlier no- * ''
tions are meet to express it by on other accounts; and it may
be so with respect to other uses of it. But the sole present
inquiry is, how it shall be declared, as that which receives
Christ, the atonement, the gift of righteousness, which will
prove its only use in our justification. He that can better
express this than by an instrument, ordained of God to this
end, all whose use depends on that ordination of God, will de-
serve well of the truth. It is true that all those who place the
formal cause or reason of our justification in ourselves, or our
inherent righteousness, and so either directly or by just con-
sequence deny all imputation of the righteousness of Christ to
our justification, are not capable of admitting faith to be an
instrument in this work, nor are pressed with this considera-
tion. For they acknowledge not that we receive a righteous-
ness which is not our own by way of gift, whereby we are
justified, and so cannot allow of any instrument whereby it
should be received. The righteousness itself being as they
phrase it putative, imaginary, a chimera, a fiction, it can have
no real accidents, nothing that can be really predicated con-
cerning it. Wherefore as was said at the entrance of this dis-
course, the truth and propriety of this declaration of the use of
faith in our justification by an instrumental cause, depends on
the substance of the doctrine itself concerning the nature and
principal causes of it, with which they must stand or fall. If
we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, which faith alone apprehends and receives, it will not
be denied but that it is rightly enough placed as the instru-
mental cause of our justification. And if we are justified by
an inherent evangelical righteousness of our own, faith may
be the condition of its imputation, or a disposition for its in-
troduction, or a congruous merit of it, but an instrument it
cannot be. But yet for the present it has this double advan-
tage, (1) That it best and most appositely answers what is
affirmed of the use of faith in our justification, in the Scrip-
ture, as the instances given manifest; (2) That no other no- -^
tion of it can be so stated, but that it must be apprehended in /
order of time to be previous to justification, which justifying _
faith catmpt be, unless a man may be a true believer with jus-
tifying faith, and yet not be justified.
Some plead that faith is the condition of our justification,
and that otherwise it is not to be conceived of. As I said be-
fore, so I say again, I shall not contend with any man about
130 USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
t words, terms, or expressions, so long as what is intended by
them, is agreed upon. And there is an obvious sense wherein
faith may be called the condition of our justification. For no
more may be intended thereby, but that it is the duty on our
part whicli God requires, that we may be justified. And this
the whole Scripture bears witness to. Yet this hindereth
not, but that as to its use, it may be the instrument whereby
we apprehend or receive Christ and his righteousness. But to
assert it the condition of our justification, or that we are justi-
fied by it as the condition of the new covenant, so as from a
pre-conceived signification of that word, to give it another use
in justification exclusive of that pleaded for, as the instrumental
cause thereof, is not easily to be admitted; because it supposes
an alteration in the substance of the doctrine itself
The word is nowhere used in the Scripture in this matter;
which I argue no further, but that we have no certain rule or
standard to try and measure its signification by. Wherefore
it cannot first be introduced in what sense men please, and
then that sense turned into argument for other ends. For thus
on a supposed concession, that it is the condition of our justi-
fication, some heighten it into a subordinate righteousness,
imputed to us, antecedently as I suppose, to the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ in any sense, whereof it is the con-
dition. And some who pretend to lessen its efficiency or dig-
nity in the use of it in our justification say, it is only causa
sine qua non, which leaves us at as great an uncertainty as to
the nature and efficacy of this condhion as we were before.
Nor is the true sense of things at all illustrated, but rather
darkened by such notions.
If we may introduce words into religion nowhere used in
the Scripture (as we may and must, if we design to bring light,
and communicate proper apprehensions of the things contained
to the minds of men) yet are we not to take along with them
arbitrary preconceived senses, forged either among lawyers,
or in the peripatetical school. The use of them in the most
approved authors of the language whereto they belong, and
their common vulgar acceptation among ourselves, must deter-
mine their sense and meaning. It is known what confusion
in the minds of men, the introduction of words into ecclesiasti-
cal doctrines, of whose signification there has not been a certain
determinate rule agreed on, has produced. So the word merit
was introduced by some of the ancients, (as is plain from the
design of their discourses wiiere they use it) for impetration or
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION. 131
acquisition quovis modo; by any means whatever. But there
being no cogent reason to confine the word to that precise sig-
nification, it has given occasion to as great a corruption as has
befallen the Christian religion. We must therefore make use
of the best means we have to understand the meaning of this
word, and what is intended by it, before we admit of its use
in this case.
Conditio in the best Latin writers is variously used; an-
swering xtt'T'affT'atjcf, tvxr^, (i|ta, ai-tia, avvdy;xt] in the Greek: that
is, Status, fortuna, dignitas, causa, pactum iiiitum. In
which of these significations it is here to be understood is not
easy to be determined. In common use among us, it some-
times denotes the state and quality of men, that is, xanaataai';
and d|ia, and sometimes a valuable consideration of what is
to be done; that is, aitia or awerjxr;. But herein it is applied
to things in great variety; sometimes the principal procuring
purchasing cause is so expressed. As the condition whereon
a man lends another an hundred pounds, is that he be paid it
again with interest. The condition whereon a man conveys
his land to another, is, that he receive so much money for it.
So a condition is a valuable consideration. And sometimes it
signifies such things as are added to the principal cause where-
on its operation is suspended. As a man bequeaths an hun-
dred pounds to another, on condition that he come or go to
such a place to demand it. This is no valuable consideration,
yet is the effect of the principal cause, or the will of llie testa-
tor suspended thereon. And as to degrees of respect to that
whereof any thing is a condition, as to purchase, procurement,
valuable consideration, necessary presence, the variety is end-
less. We therefore cannot obtain a determinate sense of this
word condition, but from a particular declaration of what is
intended by it wherever it is used. And although this be not
sufficient to exclude the use of it from the declaration of the
way and manner how we are justified by faith, yet is it so to
exclude the imposition of any precise signification of it, any
other than is given it by the matter treated of. Without this
every thing is left ambiguous and uncertain whereto it is ap-
plied.
For instance; it is commonly said that faith and new obe-
dience are the condition of the new covenant. But yet be-
cause of the ambiguous signification and various use of that
term condition we cannot certainly understand what is intend-
ed in the assertion. If no more be intended, but that God in
132 USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
and by the new covenant indispensably requires these things
of us, that is, the restipulation of a good conscience towards
God by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, in order to
his own glory, and our full enjoyment of all the benefits of it,
it is unquestionably true. But if it be intended, that they are
such a condition of the covenant, as to be by us performed
antecedently to the participation of any grace, mercy, or pri-
vilege of it, so that they should be the consideration and pro-
curing causes of them, that they should be all of them, as
some speak, the reward of our faith and obedience, it is most
false, and not only contrary to express testimonies of Scrip-
ture, but destructive of the nature of the covenant itself. If
it be intended that these things, though promised in the coven-
ant and wrought in us by the grace of God, are yet duties re-
quired of us in order to the participation and enjoyment of the
full end of the covenant in glory, it is the truth which is as-
serted. But if it be said that faith and new obedience, that is
the works of righteousness which we do, are so the condition
of the covenant, as that whatever the one is ordained of God
as a means of, and in order to such or such an end, as justi-
fication, that the other is likewise ordained to the same end,
with the same kind of etlicacy, or with the same respect to the
effect, it is expressly contrary to the whole scope and express
design of the Apostle on that subject. But it will be said that
a condition in the sense intended, when faith is said to be the
condition of our justification, is no more but that it is causa
sine qua non; which is easy enough to be apprehended. But
yet neither are we so delivered out of uncertainties, into a plain
understanding of what is intended. For these causae sine qui-
bus non, may be taken largely or more strictly and precisely.
So are they commonly distinguished by the masters in these
arts. Those so called in a larger sense, are all such causes in
any kind of efficiency or merit, as are inferior to pi-incipal
causes, and woidd operate nothing without them, but in con-
junction with them have a real etfective influence, physical or
moral, upon the production of the eff"ect. And if we take a
condition to be a cansa sine qua non, in this sense, we are
still at a loss what may be its use, efficiency or merit, with re-
spect to our justification. If it be taken more strictly for that
which is necessarily present, but has no causality in any kind,
not that of a receptive instrument, I cannot understand how
it should be an ordinance of God. For every thing that he has
appointed to any end moral or spiritual, has by virtue of that
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION. 133
appointment, either a symbolical instructive efficacy, or an ac-
tive efficiency, or a rewardable condecency with respect to that
end. Other things may be generally and remotely necessary
to such an end, so far as it partakes of the order of natural
beings, which are not ordinances of God with respect thereto,
and so have no kind of causality with respect to it, as it is mo-
ral or spiritual. So the air we breathe is needful to the preach-
ing of the word, and consequently a causa sine qua non there-
of; but an ordinance of God with especial respect thereto it is
not. But every thing that he appoints to an especial spiritual
end, has an efficacy or operation in one or other of the ways
mentioned. For they either concur with the principal cause
in its internal efficiency, or they operate externally in the re-
moval of obstacles and hinderances that oppose the principal
cause in its efficiency. And this excludes all causes .y/ne quihus
non strictly so taken, from any place among divine ordinances.
God appoints nothing for an end that shall do nothing. His
sacraments are not dpya arifisia, unmeaning signs, but by virtue
of his institution they exhibit that grace which they do not in
themselves contain. The preaching of the word has a real
efficiency to all the ends of it; so have all the graces and duties
that he works in us, and requires of us; by them all are we
" made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light;'' and
our whole obedience through his gracious appointment has a
rewardable condecency with respect to eternal life. Wherefore
as faith may be allowed to be the condition of our justification,
if no more be intended thereby, but that it is what God re-
quires of us that we may be justified; so to confine the declara-
tion of its use in our justification to its being the condition of
it, when so much as a determinate signification of it cannot be
agreed upon, is subservient only to the interest of unprofitable
strife and contention.
To close these discourses concerning faith and its use in our
justification, some things must yet be added concerning its es-
pecial object. For although what has been spoken already
thereon, in the description of its nature and object in general,
be sufficient in general to state its especial object also; yet there
having been an inquiry concerning it, and debate about it in a
peculiar notion, and under some especial terms, that also must
be considered. And this is whether justifymg faith in our jus-
tification or its use therein, do respect Christ as a king and pro-
phet, as well as a priest, with the satisfaction that as such he
made for us, and ihai in the same manner, and to the same
12
134 USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
ends and purposes. And I shall be brief in this inquiry, be-
cause it is but a late controversy, and it may be has more
of curiosity in its disquisition, than of edification in its deter-
mination. However being not, that I know of, under these
terms stated in any public confessions of the Reformed churches,
it is free for any to express their apprehensions concerning it.
And to this purpose I say:
1. Faith whereby we are justified in the receiving of Christ,
principally respects his person for all those ends for which he
is the ordinance of God. It does not in the first place, as it is
faith in general, respect his person absolutely, seeing its formal
object as such, is the truth of God in the proposition, and not
the thing itself proposed. Wherefore it so respects and receives
Christ as proposed in the promise; the promise itself being the
formal object of its assent.
2. We cannot so receive Christ in the promise, as in that act
of receiving him to exclude the consideration of any of his
offices. For as he is not at any time to be considered by us,
but as vested with all his offices, so a distinct conception of the
mind to receive Christ as a priest, but not as a king or prophet,
is not faith but unbelief, not the receiving but the rejecting of
him.
3. In the receiving of Christ for justification formally, our
distinct express design is to be justified thereby, and no more.
Now to be justified is to be freed from the guilt of sin, or to
have all our sins pardoned, and to have a righteousness where-
with to appear before God, so as to be accepted with him, and
a right to the heavenly inheritance. Every believer has other
designs also, wherein he is equally concerned with this; as
namely, the renovation of his nature, the sanctification of his
person, and ability to live to God in all holy obedience. But
the things before mentioned are all that he aims at or designs
in his applications to Christ, or his receiving of him to justifica-
tion. Wherefore,
4. Justifying faith in that act or work of it whereby we are
justified, respects Christ in his priestly office alone, as he was
the surety of the covenant, with what he did in the discharge
thereof. The consideration of his other offices is not excluded,
but it is not formally comprised in the object of faith as jus-
tifying.
5. When we say that the sacerdotal office of Christ, or the
blood of Christ, or the satisfaction of Christ, is that alone which
faith respects in justification, we do not exclude, yea we do
USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION. 135
really include and comprise in that assertion, all that depends
thereon, or concnrs to make them effectual to our justification.
As (1) the free grace and favour of God in giving Christ for
us and to us, whereby we are frequently said to be justified,
Rom. iii. 24. Ephes. ii. 8. Tit. iii. 7. His wisdom, love, right-
eousness and power, are of the same consideration, as has been
declared. (2) Whatever in Christ himself was necessary ante-
cedently to his discharge of that office, or was consequential
thereof, or necessarily accompanied it. Such was his incar-
nation, the whole course of his obedience, his resurrection, as-
cension, exaltation and intercession. For the consideration of
all these things is inseparable from the discharge of his priestly
office. And therefore is justification either expressly or vir-
tually assigned to them also. Gen. iii. 15. I John iii. 8. Heb.
ii. 13 — 16. Rom. iv. 25. Acts v. 31. Heb. vii, 27. Rom. viii.
34. But yet wherever our justification is so assigned to them,
they are not absolutely considered, but with respect to their re-
lation to his sacrifice and satisfaction. (3) All the means of
the application of the sacrifice and righteousness of the Lord
Christ to us are also included therein. Such is the principal
efficient cause thereof, whicli is the Holy Ghost, whence we
are said to be "justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by the Spirit of our God," 1 Cor. vi. 11; and the instru-
mental cause thereof on the part of God, which is the promise
of the gospel, Rom. i. 17. Gal. iii. 22, 23. It would therefore
be unduly pretended, that by this assertion we narrow or
straiten the object of justifying faith as it justifies. For indeed
we assign a respect to the whole mediatory office of Christ, not
excluding the kingly and prophetical parts thereof; but only
such a notion of them, as would not bring in more of Christ.
but much of ourselves into our justification. And the asser-
tion as laid down may be proved,
1. From the experience of all that are justified, or who seek
for justification according to the gospel. For under this notion
of seeking for justification, or a righteousness for justification,
they were all of them to be considered, and do consider them-
selves as v7io8i,xoi, ti^ ©fco, guilty before God, subject, obnoxious,
liable to his wrath in the curse of the law; as we declared in
the entrance of this discourse, Rom. iii 19. They were all in
the same state that Adam was in after the fall, to whom God
proposed the relief of the incarnation and suffering of Christ,
Gen. iii. 15. And to seek after justification, is to seek after a
discharge from this woful state and condition. Such persons
136 USE OP FAITH IN JUSTIFICATIOTf.
have and ought to have other designs and desires also. For
whereas the state wherein they are, antecedent to their justifi-
cation, is not only a state of guilt and wrath, but such also as
wherein, through the depravity of their nature, the power of
sin is prevalent in them, and their whole souls are defiled,
they design and desire not only to be justified, but to be sanc-
tified also. But as to the guilt of sin, and the want of a right-
eousness before God, from which justification is their relief,
herein I say they have respect to Christ, as set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood. In their design for
sanctification they have respect to the kingly and prophetical
offices of Christ, in their especial exercise. But as to their
freedom from the guilt of sin, and their acceptance with God,
or their justification in his sight, that they may be freed from
condemnation, that they may not come into judgment; it is
Christ crucified, it is Christ lifted up as the brazen serpent in
the wilderness, it is the blood of Christ, it is the propitiation
that he was, and the atonement that he made, it is his bearing
their sins, his being made sin and the curse for them, it is his
obedience, the end which he put to sin, and the everlasting
righteousness which he brought in, that alone their faith fixes
upon and acquiesces in. If it be otherwise in the experience
of any, I acknowledge I am not acquainted with it. I do not
say that conviction of sin is the only antecedent condition of
actual justification. But this it is that makes a sinner subjectum
capax justijicaiionis, a fit subject of justification. No man,
therefore is to be considered as a person to be justified, but he
who is actually under the power of the conviction of sin, with
all the necessary consequents thereof. Suppose therefore any
sinner in this condition, as it is described by the Apostle, Rom.
iii. guilty before God, with his mouth stopped as to any pleas,
defences or excuses; suppose him to seek after a relief and de-
iiverance out of this estate, that is, to be justified according to
the gospel; he neither does, nor can wisely take any other
course than what he is there directed to by the same Apostle,
ver. .20 — 26. " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall
no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the know-
ledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus
Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe, for there is no
difi'erence; for all have sinned, and come short of (he glory of
God; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemp-
rSK OF FAITH IX JUSTIFICATION. 137
tion that is in Jesus Christ; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his right-
eousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God." Whence I argue:
That which a guilty condemned sinner, finding no hope, nor
relief from the law of God, the sole rule of all his obedience,
betakes himself to by faith that he may be delivered or justi-
fied, that is the especial object of faith as justifying. But this
is the grace of God alone through the redemption that is in
Christ, or Christ proposed as a propitiation through faith in his
blood. Either this is so, or the Apostle does not aright guide
the souls and consciences of men in that condition wherein he
himself places them. It is the blood of Christ alone that he
directs the faith to of all them that would be justified before
God. Grace, redemption, propitiation, all through the blood
of Christ, faith peculiarly respects and fixes upon. This is
that, if I mistake not, which they will confirm by their expe-
rience, who have made any distinct observation of the actings
of their faith in their justification before God.
2. The Scripture plainly declares that faith as justifying, re-
spects the sacerdotal office and actings of Christ alone. In the
great representation of the justification of the church of old in
the expiatory sacrifice, when all their sins and iniquities were
pardoned, and their persons accepted with God, the acting of
their faith was limited to the imposition of all their sins on the
head of the sacrifice by the high priest. Lev. xvi. " By his
knowledge," that is faith in him, "shall my righteous servant
justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities," Isa. liii. 11.
That alone which faith respects in Christ as to the justification
of sinners, is his bearing their iniquities. Guilty convinced
sinners look to him by faith, as those who were stung with
fiery serpents did to the brazen serpent; that is, as he was
lifted up on the cross, John iii. l4, 15. So did he himself ex-
press the nature and actings of faith in our justification, Rom.
iii. 24, 25. "Being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth
to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." As he is a
propitiation, as he shed his blood for us, as we have redemp-
tion thereby, he is the peculiar object of our faith, with respect
to our justification. See to the same purpose, Rom. v. 9, 10;
viii. 3, 4. Ephes. i. 7; ii. 13 — 16. Col. i. 14. "He was made
sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the right-
eousness of God in him," 2 Cor. v. 21. That which we seek
12*
138 USE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFICATION.
after in justification is a participation of the rigiiteousness of
God; to be made the righteousness of God, and that not in our-
selves but in another, that is in Christ Jesus. And that alone
which is proposed to our faith as the means and cause of it, is,
his being " made sin" for us, or a sacrifice for sin, wherein all
the guilt of our sins was laid on him, and he bare all our ini-
quities. This therefore is its peculiar object herein. And
wherever in the Scripture we are directed to seek for the for-
giveness of sins by the blood of Christ, receive the Atonement,
to be justified through the faith of him as crucified, the object
of faith in justification is limited and determined.
But it may be pleaded in exception to these testimonies, that
. no one of them affirms, that we are justified by faith in the
blood of Christ alone; so as to exclude the consideration of the
other offices of Christ and their actings, from being the ob-
ject of faith in the same manner, and to the same ends, with
his sacerdotal office, and what belongs thereto, or is derived
from it.
Ansiu. This exception is derived from that common objec-
tion against the doctrine of justification by faith alone; namely,
that that exclusive term alone, is not found in the Scripture, or
in any of the testimonies that are produced for justification by
faith. But it is replied with sufficient evidence of truth, that
although the word be not found syllabically used to this pur-
pose; yet there are exceptive expressions equivalent to it, as
we shall see afterwards. It is so in this particular instance also.
For (1) whereas our justification is expressly ascribed to our
faith in the blood of Christ, as the propitiation for our sins, to
our believing in him as crucified for us, and it is nowhere as-
cribed to our receiving of him as king, lord, or prophet; it is
plain, that the former expressions are virtually exclusive of
the latter consideration. (2) I do not say, That the considera-
tion of the kingly and prophetical offices of Christ is excluded
from our justification, as works are excluded in opposition to
faith and grace. For they are so excluded, as that we are to
exercise an act of our minds in their positive rejection, as say-
ing. Get you hence, you have no lot nor portion in this matter.
But as to these offices of Christ, as to the object of faith as jus-
tifying, we say only that they are not included therein. For
so to believe to be justified by his blood, as to exercise a posi-
tive act of the mind, excluding a compliance with his other
offices, is an impious imagination.
3. Neither the consideration of these offices themselves, nor
USE OF FAITH IN ^^^felCATION. 139
of any of the peculiar acts of thern, is suited to give the souls
and consciences of convinced sinners, that relief which they
seek after in justification. We are not in this whole cause to lose
sight of the state of the person who is to be justified, and what it
is he seeks after and ought to seek after, therein. Now this is par-
don of sin, and righteousness before God alone. That therefore,
which is no way suited to give or tender this relief to him, is
not, nor can be the object of his faith, whereby he is justified in
that exercise of it, whereon his justification depends. This
relief, it will be said, is to be had in Christ alone. It is true,
but under what consideration? for the sole design of the sinner
is how he may be accepted with God, be at peace with him,
have all his wrath turned away, by a propitiation or atone-
ment. Now this can no otherwise be done, but by the acting
of some one, towards God, and with God, on his behalf; for
it is about the turnmg away of God's anger, and acceptance
with him, that the inquiry is made. It is by the blood of
Christ that we are made nigh, who were far off; Ephes. ii. 13.
By the blood of Christ are we reconciled who were enemies;
V. 16. By the blood of Christ we have redemption. Rom. iii.
24, 25. Eph. i. 7, &c. This therefore, is the object of faith.
All the actings of the kingly and prophetical offices of Christ,
are from God, that is, in the name and authority of God towards
us. Not any one of them is towards God on onr behalf, so
that by virtue of them, we should expect acceptance with God.
They are all good, blessed, holy, in themselves, and of an emi-
nent tendency to the glory of God in onr salvation: yea, they
are no less necessary to our salvation to the praise of God's
grace, than are the atonement for sin and satisfaction which
he made; for from them is the way of life revealed to us, grace
communicated, our persons sanctified, and the reward bestow-
ed. Yea, in the exercise of his kingly power does the Lord
Christ pardon and justify sinners. Not that he did as a king
constitute the law of justification, for it was given and estab-
lished in the first promise, and he came to put it in execution;
John iii. 16. But in the virtue of his atonement and righteous-
ness imputed to them, he both pardons and justifies sinners.
But they are the acts of his sacerdotal office alone, that respect
God on our behalf. Whatever he did on earth with God for
the church, in obedience, suffering, and offering up of himself,
whatever he does in heaven in intercession, and appearance
in the presence of God for us, it all entirely belongs to his
priestly office. And in these things alone does the soul of a
140 USE OF F^^^IN JUSTIFICATION.
convinced sinner find relief, when he seeks after deUverance
from the state of sin and acceptance with God. In these there-
fore alone, the peculiar object of his faith, that which will give
him rest and peace, must be comprised. And this last consider-
ation is of itself sufficient to determine this difference.
Sundry things are objected against this assertion, which I
shall not here at large discuss, because what is material in any
of them, will occur on other occasions, where its consideration
will be more proper. In general it may be pleaded, that justi-
fying faith is the same with saving faith; nor is it said, that we
are justified by this or that part of faith, but by faith in gene-
ral, that is, as taken essentially for the entire grace of faith.
And as to faith in this sense, not only a respect to Christ in all
his offices, but obedience itself also is included in it, as is evi-
dent in many places of the Scripture. Wherefore there is no
reason why we should limit the object of it, to the person of
Christ as acting in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, with
the effects and fruits thereof.
*,^nsw. 1. Saving faith, and justifying faith in any believer
are one and the same, and the adjuncts of saving and Jiistifi/-
ing are but external denominations, from its distinct operations
and effects. But yet saving faith acts in a peculiar manner,
and is of peculiar use in justification, such as it is not of under
any other consideration whatever. Wherefore (2) although
saving faith as it is described in general, always includes obe-
dience, not as its form or essence, but as the necessary effect is
included in the cause, and the fruit in the fruit-bearing juice,
and is often mentioned as to its .being and exercise, where there
is no express mention of Christ, his blood, and his righteous-
ness, but is applied to all the acts, duties, and ends of the gos-
pel; yet this proves not at all, but that as to its duty, place, and
acting in our justification, it has a peculiar object. If it could
be proved, that, where justification is ascribed to faith, there it
has any other object assigned to it, as that vi^hich it rested in
for the pardon of sin and acceptance with God, this objection
were of some force. But this cannot be done. (3) This is not
to say, that we are justified by a part of faith, and not by it as
considered essentially ; for we are justified by the entire grace
of faith, acting in such a peculiar way and manner ; as others
have observed. But the truth is, we need not insist on the dis-
cussion of this inquiry. For the true meaning of it is, not
whether any thing of Christ is to be excluded from being the
object of justifying faith, or of faith in our justification, but
OF JUSTIFICATION. 141
what, in and of ourselves, under the name of receiving Christ,
as our Lord and King, is to be admitted to an efficiency or con-
ditionality in that work. As it is granted, that justifying faith
is the receiving of Christ, so whatever belongs to the person of
Christ, or any office of his, or any acts in the discharge of any
office, that may be reduced to any cause of our justification,
the meritorious, procuring, material, formal, or manifesting
cause of it, is so far as it does so, freely admitted to belong to
the object of justifying faith. Neither will I contend with any
upon this disadvantageous stating of the question, what of
Christ is to be esteemed the object of justifying faith, and what
is not so ? For the thing intended is only this ; whether our own
obedience, distinct from faith, or included in it, and in like
manner as faith, be the condition of our justification before
God. This being that which is intended, which the other
question is but invented to lead to a compliance with, by a
more specious pretence than in itself it is capable of under
those terms, it shall be examined and no otherwise.
CHAPTER IV.
OF JUSTIFICATION, THE NOTION, AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORD IN
THE SCRIPTURE.
In order to the right miderstanding of the nature of justification,
the proper sense and signification of these words themselves,
justification and io justify, is to be inquired into. For until that
is agreed upon, it is impossible that our discourses concerning
the thing itself should be freed from equivocation. Take words
in various senses, and all may be true that is contradictorily
affirmed or denied concerning what they are supposed to sig-
nify. And so it has actually fallen out in this case, as we shall
see more fully afterwards. Some taking these words in one
sense, some in another, have appeared to deliver contrary doc-
trines concerning the thing itself, or our justification before
God; who yet have fully agreed in what the proper determi-
nate sense or signification of the words imports. And there-
fore the true meaning of them has been declared and vindicated
already by many. But whereas the right stating hereof, is of
142 OF JUSTIFICATION.
more moment to the determination of what is principally con-
troverted about the doctrine itself, or the thing signified, than
most apprehend; and something at least remains to be added
for the declaration and vindication of the import and only sig-
nification of these words in the Scripture, I shall give an ac-
count of my observations concerning it, with what diligence
I can.
The Latin derivation and composition of the word Justi^ca-
tio would seem to denote an internal change from inherent un-
righteousness, to righteousness likewise inherent ; by a physi-
cal motion, and transmutation, as the schoolmen speak. For
such IS the signification of words of the same composition. So
sanctification, mortification, vivification, and the like, all de-
note a real internal work on the subject spoken of. Hereon
in the whole Roman school, justification is taken for the making
of a man to be inherently righteous by the infusion of a princi-
ple or habit of grace, who was before inherently and habitually
imjust and unrighteous. Whilst this is taken to be the proper
signification of the word ; we neither do nor can speak ad idem
in our disputations with them about the cause and nature of
that justification, which the Scripture teaches.
And this appearing sense of the word possibly deceived some
of the ancients, as Austin in particular, to declare the doctrine
of free gratuitous sanctification, without respect to any works
of our own, under the name of justification. For neither he
nor any of them, ever thought of a justification before God,
consistma: in the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our
persons as righteous, by virtue of any inherent habit of grace
infused into us, or acted by us. Wherefore the subject matter
must be determined by the Scriptural use and signification of
these words, before we can speak properly or intelligibly con-
cerning it. For if io justify men in the Scripture, signify to
make them subjectively and inherently righteous, we must ac-
knowledge a mistake in what we teach concerning the nature
and causes of justification. And if it signify no such thing, all
their disputations about justification by the infusion of grace
and inherent righteousness thereon fall to the ground. Where-
fore all Protestants (and the Socinians all of them comply
therein) affirm that the use and signification of these words is
forensic, denoting an act of jurisdiction. Only the Socinians,
and some others, would have it to consist in the pardon of sin
only, which indeed the word does not at all signify. But the
sense of the word is to acquit, to declare and pronounce right-
OF JUSTIFICATION.
143
eous upon a trial, which in this case, the pardon of sin necessa-
rily accompanies.
Justijicatio and justifico belong not indeed to the Latin
tongue; nor can any good author be produced who ever used
them, for the making of him inherently righteous by any
means who was not so before. But whereas these words were
coined and framed to signify such things as are intended, we
have no way to determine the signification of them, but by
the consideration of the nature of the things which they
were invented to declare and signify. And whereas in this
language these words are derived from jus and Justus, they
must respect an act of jurisdiction, rather than a physical
operation or infusion. Justijicari is Justus censeri, pro Jiisto
haberi; to be esteemed, accounted or adjudged righteous. So
a man was made Justus Jilius in adoption to him, by whom
he was adopted: what this is, is well declared by Budseus.*
" Speaking of the form of adoption — He who adopts is asked
whether he wishes him whom he designs to adopt, to be to him
a.Jusi son. By j'tist, I understand not true, as some think, but
one who has all the attributes of filiation, who sustains the
relation of a true son, who sits in the place of a lawfully-begot-
ten child." Wherefore, as by adoption, there is no internal
inherent change made in the person adopted; but by virtue
thereof he is esteemed and adjudged as a true son, and has all
the rights of a legitimate son; so by justification, as to the im-
port of the word, a man is only esteemed, declared and pro-
nounced righteous, as if he were completely so. And in the
present case, justification and gratuitous adoption are the same
grace for the substance of them, John i. 12; only respect is had
in their different denomination of the same grace, to different
effects or privileges that ensue thereon.
But the true and genuine signification of these words is to
be determined from those in the original languages of the
Scripture which are expounded by them. In the Hebrew it
is pis. This the Lxx. render by fitxatov djto^a/vw. Job xxvii. 5.
Sixaio^ ajtofaivofiai, Job XUl. 18. 8t,xaiov xpivco, PrOV. XVli. 15, tO
show or declare one righteous; to appear righteous; to judge
any one righteous. And the sense may be taken from any
one of them, as Job xiii. IS. " Behold now I have ordered my
* Cajus lib. 2. F. de Adopt. De arrogationc loquens ; is qui adoptat rogatur,
id est, interrogatur, an velit eum quern adoptaturus sit, justum sibi fillum esse.
Jusium intelligo non verum, ut aliqui consent, sed omnibus partibus ut ita dicam
liiiationis, veri filii vieem obtinentem, naturalis et legitimi filii loco sedentem.
144 OF JUSTIFICATION.
cause, I know that I shall be justified." The ordering of his
cause, (his judgment) his cause to be judged on, is his prepara-
tion for a sentence, either of absolution or condemnation; and
hereon his confidence was that he should be justified, that
is, absolved, acquitted, pronounced righteous. And the sense
is no less pregnant in the other places; commonly they render
it by 5ta;ato«, whcreof I shall speak afterwards.
Properly it denotes an action towards another, (as justifica-
tion, and to justify do) in Hiphil only: and a reciprocal action
of a man on himself in Hithpael p^Tin. Hereby alone is the
true sense of these words determined. And I say that in no
place, nor on any occasion, is it used in that conjugation
wherein it denotes an action towards another, in any other
sense, but to absolve, acquit, esteem, declare, pronounce right-
eous, or to impute righteousness, which is the forensic sense of
the word we plead for: that is its constant use and significa-
tion, nor does it ever once signify to make inherently right-
eous; much less to pardon or forgive. So vain is the pretence
of some that justification consists only in the pardon of sin,
which is not signified by the word in any one place of Scrips
ture. Almost in all places this sense is absolutely unquestion-
able; nor is there any more than one which will admit of any
debate, and that on so faint a pretence as cannot prejudice its
constant use and signification in all other places. Whatever
therefore an infusion of inherent grace may be, or however it
may be called, justification it is not, it cannot be; the word
no where signifying any such thing. Wlierefore those of the
church of Rome do not so much oppose justification by faith
through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as in-
deed deny that there is any such thing as justification. For
that which they call the first justification, consisting in the in-
fusion of a principle of inherent grace, is no such thing as jus-
tification. And their second justification which they place in
the merit of works, wherein absolution or pardon of sin, has
neither place nor consideration, is inconsistent with evangelical
justification, as we shall show afterwards.
This word, therefore, whether the act of God towards men,
or of men towards God, or of men among themselves, or of
one towards another, be expressed thereby, is always used in
a. forensic sense, and does not denote a physical operation,
transfusion or transmutation, 2 Sam. xv. 4. " If any man hath
a suit or cause let him come to me, mmsm and I will do him
justice;" I will justify him, judge in his cause and pronounce
OP JUSTIFICATION.
145
for* him. Deut. xxv. 1, "If there be a controversy among
men, and they come to judgment, that the judges may judge
them, they shall justify the righteous," pronounce sentence on
his side, whereunto is opposed " and they shall condemn the
wicked;" make him wicked, as the word signifies; that is,
judge, declare and pronounce him wicked, whereby he be-
comes so judicially, and in the eye of the law; as the other
is made righteous, by declaration and acquittal. He does not
say this shall pardon the righteous, to suppose which would
overthrow both the antithesis and design of the place. And
jj^tf-in is as much to infuse wickedness into a man, as p^xn is to in-
fuse a principle of grace or righteousness into him. The same
antithesis occurs, Prov. xvii. 15. pnsj?>a'-iaivcipnxn, "He thatjus-
tifieth the wicked and condemneth the righteous;" not he
that maketh the wicked inherently righteous, nor he that
changeth him inherently from unrighteous to righteousness:
but he that without any ground, reason or foundation acquits
him in judgment, or declares him to be righteous, is an abomi-
nation to the Lord. And although this be spoken of the judg-
ment of men, yet the judgment of God also is according to
this truth. For although he justifies the ungodly, those who
are so in themselves, yet he does it on the ground and consi-
deration of a perfect righteousness made theirs by imputation;
and by another act of his grace, that they may be meet sub-
jects of this righteous favour, really and inherently changes
them from unrighteousness to holiness, by the renovation of
their natures: and these things are singular in the actings of
God, which nothing amongst men has any resemblance to or
can represent. For the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, to a person in himself ungodly for his justification, or
that he may be acquitted, absolved, and declared righteous, is
built on such foundations, and proceeds on such principles of
righteousness, wisdom and sovereignty, as have no place
among the actions of men, nor can have, as shall afterwards
be declared. And moreover, when God justifies the ungodly
on account of the righteousness imputed to him, he does at
the same instant, by the power of his grace, make him inhe-
rently and subjectively righteous or holy, which men cannot
do one towards another. And therefore whereas man's justi-
fying the wicked, is to justify them in their wicked ways,
whereby they are constantly made worse and more obdurate
in evil; when God justifies the ungodly, their change from
13
146 OP JUSTIFICATION.
personal unrighteousness and unholiness, to righteousness and
holiness, necessarily and infallibly accompanies it.
To the same purpose is the word used; Isa. v. 23. "which
justify the wicked for reward." 1. 8. vnso anp. " He is near
that justifieth me; who shall contend with me? let us stand
together; who is my adversary? let him come near to me; be-
hold the Lord God will help me; who shall condemn me?"
where we have a full declaration of the proper sense of the
word, which is to acquit and pronounce righteous on a trial.
And the same sense is fully expressed in the former antithesis.
1 Kings viii. 31, 32. "If any man trespass against his neigh-
bour, and an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and
the oath come before thine altar in this house; then hear thou in
Heaven and do, and judge thy servants to condemn the wick-
ed," to charge his wickedness on him, to bring his way on his
head, "and to justify the righteous." The same words are
repeated 2 Chron. vi. 22, 23. Psal. Ixxxii. 3. " Do justice to
the afflicted and poor ;" that is, justify them in their cause
against wrong and oppression. Exod. xxiii. 7. " I will not
justify the wicked ;" absolve, acquit, or pronounce him right-
eous. Job xxvii. 5, " Be it far from me that I should justify
you," or pronounce sentence on your side, as if you were
righteous. Isa. liii. 11. "By his knowledge my righteous ser-
vant shall justify many;" the reason whereof is added: "for
he shall bear their iniquities," whereon they are absolved and
justified.
Once it is used in Hithpael, wherein a reciprocal action is
denoted, that whereby a man justifies himself. Gen. xliv. 16.
"And Judali said, what shall we say unto my Lord? what
shall we speak, and how shall we justify ourselves? God hath
found out our iniquity." They could plead nothing why they
should be absolved from guilt.
Once the participle is used to denote the outward instrumen-
tal cause of the justification of others, m which place alone
there is any doubt of its sense; Dan. xii. 3; "and they that
justify many ;" namely, in the same sense that the preachers
of the gospel are said to " save themselves and others." 1 Tim.
iv. 16. For men may be no less the instrumental causes of
the justification of others, than of their sanctification.
Wherefore, although Pli" in Kal, signifies 71^5/?^^ e^^e, and
sometimes Juste agere, which may relate to inherent righteous-
ness; yet where any action towards another is denoted, this
word signifies nothing, but to esteem, declare, pronounce, and
OF JUSTIFICATION. 147
adjudge any one absolved, acquitted, cleared, justified: there is
therefore no other kind of justification once mentioned in the
Old Testament,
Aixatow is the word used to the same purpose in the New
Testament, and that alone. Neither is this word used in any-
good author whatever, to signify the making of a man righteous
by any applications to produce internal righteousness in him;
but either to absolve and acquit, to judge, esteem, and pro-
nounce righteous, or on the contrary to condemn. So Suidas,
Aixavovv 8vo SrjXoi) t'o t'e xo^a^sn', xae. to Stxacov j/Ojitt^sii'. " Atxatow
has two significations, to punish, and to account righteous."
And he confirms this sense of the word by instances out of
Herodotus, Appianus and Josephus. And again, 8i,xaiu,aao atfta-
•tixr^, xataSt,xaaai,y xoTiauat, Stxatov vof^vaat,'^ " with aU aCCUSative
case," that is, when it respects and affects a subject, a person,
" it is either to condemn and punish, or to esteem and declare
righteous;" and of this latter sense, he gives pregnant instances
in the next words. Hesychius mentions only the first signifi-
cation. Aixaiov[^£vov, xoXa^ofisvov, Stxatwtfat, xo%aaai. They never
thought of any sense of this word, but what is forensic. And
in our language, to be justified, was commonly used formerly,
for to be judged and sentenced; as it is still among the Scots.
One of the articles of peace between the two nations at the
surrender of Leith, in the days of Edward the Sixth, was;
" that if any one committed a crime, he should he justified by
the law, upon his trial." And in general Stxatous^at, is jus in
judicio auferre; and Stxatuaot, is justum cejisere, declarare,
pronuntiare ; and how in the Scripture it is constantly oppos-
ed to condemnare, we shall see immediately.
But we may more distinctly consider the use of this word
in the New Testament, as we have done that of p-^^i^ in
the Old. And that which we inquire concerning is, whether
this word be used in the New Testament, in a forensic sense
to denote an act of jurisdiction, or in a physical sense to ex-
press an internal change or mutation, the infusion of a habit
of righteousness, and the denomination of the person to be
justified thereon; or whether it signifies not pardon of sin.
But this we may lay aside; for surely no man was ever yet
so fond as to pretend that Stxaiow signified to pardon sin; yet
is it the only word applied to express our justification in the
New Testament. For if it be taken only in the former sense,
then that which is pleaded for by those of the Roman church,
under the name of justification, whatever it be, however good,
148 OF JUSTIFICATION.
useful and necessary, yet justification it is not, nor can be so
called; seeing it is a thing quite of another nature than what
alone is signified by that word. Matt. xi. 19. iSixaMOr^ r, ao^ta;
"wisdom is justified of her children," not made just, but ap-
proved and declared. Chap. xii. 37. ix rcor ^oyuiv cs bixa.n^eriori\
" by thy words thou shalt be justified;" not made just by them,
but judged according to them, as is manifest in the antithesis,
xa.1 ix tcov xoycuv 08 xataScxas^t^arj; " and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned." Luke vii. 29. tSixaioJoav tov Qiov; " they jus-
tified God;" not surely by making him righteous in himself,
but by owning, avowing and declaring his righteousness; chap.
X. 29. o Bt Oi-ki^v ht.xaiovv iavtov; "he willing to justify himself,"
to declare and maintain his own righteousness. To the same
purpose; chap. Xvi. 15. v^d^ iatB ii bixa^owfii tavtov^, ji'wrttoi' rtof
av9pu7icjv', "ye are they that justify yourselves before men;"
they did not make themselves internally righteous, but ap-
proved of their own condition; as our Saviour declares in the
place. Luke xviii. 14; the publican went down debixaitJi^ivoi,
"justified" to his house; that is, acquitted, absolved, par-
doned, upon the confession of his sin, and supplication for
remission. Acts xiii. 3S, 39. with Rom. ii. 13. ot noirjtai, tov
vofin Bi.Kai,ui9y!aovtai. " The doers of the law shall be justified."
The place declares directly the nature of our justification be-
fore God, and puts the signification of the word out of ques-
tion. For justification ensues, as the whole etTect of inherent
righteousness according to the law: and therefore it is not
the making of us righteous; which is irrefragable. It is spoken
of God; Rom. iii. 4. onu>5 av BoxanoOr^i iv rotj Xoyotj en; " That
thou mayest be justified in thy sayings;" where to ascribe
any other sense to the word is blasphemy. In like manner
the same word is used, and in the same signification; 1 Cor.
iv. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Rom. iii. 20, 26, 28, 30; iv. 2, 5; v. 1. 9;
vi. 7; viii. 30. Gal. ii. 16, 17; iii. 11,24; v. 4. Tit. iii. 7. Jam.
ii. 22, 24, 25. And in no one of these instances can it admit
of any other signification, or denote the making of any man
righteous by the infusion of a habit, or principle of righteous-
ness, or any internal mutation whatever.
It is not therefore in many places of Scripture, as Bellarmine
grants, that the words we have insisted on, signify the declara-
tion or juridical pronunciation of any one to be righteous, but
in all places where they are used, they are capable of no other
but a forensic sense; especially is this evident where mention
is made of justification before God. And because in my
or JUSTIFICATION. 149
judgment this one consideration sufficiently defeats all the pre-
tences of those of the Roman church about the nature of jus-
tification, I shall consider what is excepted against the obser-
vation insisted on, and remove it out of our way.
Lud. de Blanc, in his conciliatory endeavours on this article
of justification ( Thes. de usu et acceptatione vocis,JustiJicandi,)
grants to the Papists, that the word Stxatow in sundry places of
the New Testament, signifies to renew, to sanctify, to infuse a
habit of holiness or righteousness, according as they plead.
And there is no reason to think but he has grounded that con-
cession on those instances, which are most pertinent to that
purpose. Neither is it to be expected that a better countenance
will be given by any to this concession, than is given it by him.
I shall therefore examine all the instances which he insists
upon to this purpose, and leave the determination of the dif-
ference to the judgment of the reader. Only I shall premise
that which I judge not an unreasonable demand; namely,
That if the signification of the word in any, or all the places
which he mentions, should seem doubtful to any, (as it does
not to me,) the uncertainty of a very few places should not
make us question the proper signification of a word, whose
sense is determined in so many, wherein it is clear and un-
questionable. The first place he mentions, is that of the Apos-
tle Paul himself, Rom. viii. 30. " Moreover whom he did pre-
destinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he
also justified, and wiiom he justified them he also glorified."
The reason whereby he pleads that hy justijied in this place,
an internal work of inherent holiness in lliem that are predes-
tinated is designed, is this and no other. "It is not likely that
the holy Apostle in this enumeration of gracious privileges,
would omit the mention of our sanctification by which we are
freed from the service of sin, and adorned with true internal
holiness and righteousness: but this is utterly omitted, if it be
not comprised under the name and title of being justified; for
it is absurd with some, to refer it to the head of glorification. '^
Answ. (1) The grace of sanctification, whereby our natures
are spiritually washed, purified and endowed with a principle
of life, holiness and obedience to God, is a privilege unques-
tionably great and excellent, and without which none can be
saved. Of the same nature also is our redemption by the
blood of Christ. And both these does this Apostle in other
places without number, declare, commend, and insist upon.
But that he ought to have introduced the mention of them, or
13*
150 OP JUSTIFICATION.
either of them in this place, seeing he has not done so, I dare
not judge.
2. If our sanctification be included or intended in any of the
privileges here expressed, there is none of them, predestination
only excepted, but it is more probably to be reduced to, than
to that of being justified. Indeed in vocation it seems to be
included expressly. For whereas it is effectual vocation that
is intended wherein a holy principle of spiritual life, or faith
itself is communicated to us, our sanctification radically, and
as the effect in its adequate immediate cause, is contained in it.
Hence we are said to be " called to be saints;" Rom. i. 7, which
is the same with being "sanctified in Christ Jesus." 1 Cor. i. 2.
And in many other places is sanctification included in vocation.
3. Whereas our sanctification, in the infusion of a principle
of spiritual life, and the actings of it to an increase in duties of
holiness, righteousness and obedience, is that whereby we are
made meet for glory, and is of tlie same nature essentially with
glory itself, whence its advances in us are said to be " from
glory to glory;" 2 Cor. iii. 18, and glory itself is called the
" grace of life;" 1 Pet. iii. 7, it is much more properly express-
ed by our being glorified than by being justified, which is a
privilege quite of another nature. However it is evident, that
there is no reason why we should depart from the general use
and signification of the word, no circumstance in the text com-
pelling us so to do.
The next place that he gives up to this signification is, 1
Cor. vi. 11, " Such were some of you, but ye are washed, but
ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." That by justification
here, the infusion of an inherent principle of grace making us in-
herently righteous, is intended, he endeavours to prove by three
reasons: (1) " Because justification is here ascribed to the Holy
Ghost, 'ye are justified by the Spirit of our God.' But to
renew us is the proper work of the Holy Spirit. (2) It is mani-
fest that by justification, the Aposlle signifies some change in
the Corinthians, whereby they ceased to be what they were
before. For they were fornicators and drunkards, such as
could not inherit the kingdom of God, but now were changed,
which proves a real inherent work of grace, to be intended.
(3) If justification here signify nothing, but to be absolved
from the punishment of sin, then the reasoning of the Apostle
will be infirm and frigid. For after he has said that which is
greater, as heightening of it, he adds the less: for it is more to
OF JUSTIFICATION.
151
be washed, than merely to be freed from the punishment of
sin."
Jlnsw. 1. All these reasons prove not, that it is the same to
be sanctified and to be justified, which must be, if that be the
sense of the latter, which is here pleaded for. But the Apostle
makes an express distinction between them, and as this author
observes, proceeds from one to another by an ascent from the
lesser to the greater. And the infusion of a habit or principle
of grace, or righteousness evangelical, whereby we are inhe-
rently righteous, by which he explains our being justified in
this place, is our sanctification and nothing else. Yea, and
sanctification is here distinguished from washing; "but ye are
washed, but ye are sanctified;" so that it peculiarly in this
place denotes positive habits of grace and holiness. Neither
can he declare the nature of it, any way diff'erent from what
he would have expressed by being justified.
2. Justification is ascribed to the Spirit of God, as the princi-
pal efficient cause of the application of the grace of God and
blood of Christ, whereby we are justified, to our souls and con-
sciences. And he is so also of the operation of that faith
whereby we are justified; whence, although we are said to be
justified by him, yet it does not follow that our justification
consists in the renovation of our natures.
3. The change and mutation that was made in these Corin-
thians, so far as it was physical in effects inherent (as such
there was) the Apostle expressly ascribes to their washing and
sanctification ; so that there is no need to suppose this change
to be expressed by their being justified. And in the real change
asserted, that is, in the renovation of our natures, consists the
true entire work and nature of our sanctification. But whereas
by reason of the vicious habits and practices mentioned, they
were in a state of condemnation, and such as had no right to
the kingdom of Heaven, they were by their justification chang-
ed and transferred out of that state into another, wherein they
had peace with God, and right to life eternal.
4. The third reason proceeds upon a mistake; namely, that
to be justified, is only to be freed from the punishment due to
sin. For it comprises both the non-imputation of sin, and the
imputation of righteousness, with the privilege of adoption,
and right to the heavenly inheritance, which are inseparable
from it. And although it does not appear that the Apostle in
the enumeration of these privileges, intended a process from
the less to the greater; nor is it safe for us to compare the un-
152
OF JUSTIFICATION.
utterable effects of the grace of God by Christ Jesus, such as
sanctification and justification are, and to determine which is
greatest, and which is least; yet following the conduct of the
Scripture, and the due consideration of the things themselves,
we may say that in this life we can be made partakers of no
greater mercy or privilege, than what consists in our justifica-
tion. And the reader may see from hence, how impossible it
is to produce any one place wherein the woxdiS, justification
and to justify, signify a real internal work and physical ope-
ration ; in that this learned man, a person of more than ordinary
perspicacity, candour and judgment, designing to prove it, insist-
ed on such instances, as give so little countenance to what he
pretended. He adds, Tit. iii. 5-7. " Not by works of right-
eousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he
saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus
Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The
argument which alone he insists upon to prove, that by justi-
fication here, an infusion of internal grace is intended, is this;
that the Apostle affirmed first, "'that God saved us, according
to his mercy by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of
the Holy Ghost, and afterwards affirming that we are justified
by his grace, he supposes it necessary, that we should be re-
generate and renewed, that we may be justified; and if so,
then our justification contains and comprises our sanctification
also."
Jlnswer. The plain truth is, the Apostle speaks not one word
of the necessity of our sanctification, or regeneration, or re-
novation by the Holy Ghost, antecedently to our justification,
a supposition whereof contains the whole force of this argu-
ment. Indeed he assigns our regeneration, renovation, and
justification, all the means of our salvation, equally to grace
and mercy, in opposition to any works of our own, which we
shall afterwards make use of. Nor is there intimated by him,
any order of precedency, or connexion between the things that
he mentions, but only between justification an^i adoption, jus-
tification having the priority in order of nature; "that being
justified by his grace, we should be heirs according to the hope
of eternal life." All the things he mentions are inseparable.
No man is regenerate or renewed by the Holy Ghost, but
withal he is justified. No man is justified, but withal he is
renewed by the Holy Ghost. And they are all of them equally
OF JUSTIFICATION. 153
of sovereign grace in God, in opposition to any works of right-
eousness, that we have wrought. And we plead for the free-
dom of God's grace in sanctification, no less than in justifica-
tion. But that it is necessary that we should be sanctified that
we may be justified before God, who justifieth the ungodly,
the Apostle says not in this place, nor any thing to that pur-
pose ; neither yet if he did so, would it at all prove that the
signification of that expression to be justified, is to be sanctified,
or to have inherent hohness and righteousness wrought in us.
And these testimonies would not have been produced to prove
it, wherein these things are so expressly distinguished, but that
there are none to be found of more force or evidence.
The last place wherein he grants this signification of the
word Stxatoco is Revel, xxii. 11. o Stxacoj SixaioOTjtu iti, qui
Justus est, justijicetur adhuc; which place is pleaded by all
the Romanists. And our author says, there are but few among
the Protestants who do not acknowledge that the word cannot
be here used in a forensic sense, but that to be justified, is to
go on and increase in piety and righteousness.
Answer. But (1) There is a great objection lies in the way
of any argument from these words; namely, from the various
reading of the place. For many ancient copies read not 6 Stxatoj
SixaioStita sfi ; whicli the Vulgate renders justijicetur adhuc;
but hixavoavvTiv rtoirjaatcj itc ; " let him that is righteous, work
righteousness still," as does the printed copy which now lies
before me. So it was in the copy of the Complutensian editon
which Stephens commends above all others ; and in one more
ancient copy that he used. So it is in the Syriac and Arabic
published by Hutterus, and in our own Polyglot. So Cyprian
reads the words de bono patientise ; Justus autem adhuc jus-
tiora faciat , similiter et qui sanctus sanctiora. And I doubt
not but that is the true reading of the place; Stxatoei^rca being
supplied by some to correspond with ayiaa^ritu that ensues.
And this phrase of bt,xa,t,oavriv noi,Biv is peculiar to this Apostle,
being no where used in the New Testament, (nor it may be in
any other author) but by him. And he uses it expressly; 1
John ii. 29; and iii. 7, where those^words, 6 noiav Sixaioswt^v Stxatoj
iati, plainly contain what is here expressed. (2) To be jus-
tified, as the word is rendered by the Vulgate, "let him be jus-
tified more" (as it must be rendered, if the word SixotoSijTw be
retained) respects an act of God, which neither in its beginning
nor continuation is prescribed to us as a duty, nor is capable of
increase in degrees as we shall show afterwards. (3) Men are
154 OF JITSTIFICATION.
said to be Siseatot generally from inherent righteousness; and if
the Apostle had intended justification in this place, he would
not have said o Sixato; but o fitxatw^stj. All which things prefer
the Complutensian, Syriac, and Arabic, before the vulgar read-
ing of this place. If the vulgar reading be retained, no more
can be intended, but that he who is righteous, should so
proceed in working righteousness, as to secure his justified
estate to himself, and to manifest it before God and the
world.
Now whereas the words Sixcuoa and Sixaiooj^at are used
thirty-six times in the New Testament, these are all the places,
whereto any exception is put in against their forensic signifi-
cation; and how ineffectual these exceptions are, is evident to
any impartial judge.
Some other considerations may yet be made use of and
pleaded to the same purpose. Such is the opposition that is
made between justification and condemnation; so is it, Isa. 1.
8, 9. Prov. xvii. 15. Rom. v. 16, IS; viii. 33, 34, and in
sundry other places, as may be observed in the preceding
enumeration of them. Wherefore as condemnation is not the
infusing of a habit of wickedness into him that is condemned,
nor the making of him to be inherently wicked, who was be-
fore righteous ; but the passing a sentence upon a man with
respect to his wickedness; no more is justification the change
of a person from inherent unrighteousness to righteousness, by
the infusion of a principle of grace, but a sentential declaration
of him to be righteous.
Moreover, the thing intended is frequently declared in the
Scripture by other equivalent terms, which are absolutely ex-
clusive of any such sense, as the infusion of a habit of right-
eousness ; so the Apostle expresses it by the " imputation of
righteousness without works;" Rom. ,iv. 6, 11; and calls it
the blessedtiess, which we have by the pardon of sin, and the
covering of iniquity in the same place. So it is called "recon-
ciliation with God;" Rom. v. 9, 10. To be justified by the
blood of Christ, is the same with being " reconciled by his
death." " Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved
from wrath by him. For if when we were enemies we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." See 2 Cor. v. 20, 21.
Reconciliation is not the infusion of a habit of grace, but the
effecting of peace and love, by the removal of all enmity and
causes of offence. To save, and salvation, are used to the
OP JUSTIFICATION.
155
same purpose. " He shall save his people from their sins ;"
Matth. i. 21, is the same with, "by him all that believe are
justified from all things from which they could not be justified
by the law of Moses," Acts xiii. 39. That of Gal. ii. 16, " We
have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law," is the same with Actsxv. 11,
" But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, we shall be saved even as they." Ephes. ii. 8, 9. "By
grace ye are saved, through faith, and not of works ;" is so to
be justified. So it is expressed by pardon, or the remission of
sins, which is the effect of it; Rom. iv. 5, 6. By receiving the
atonement ; Rom. v. 11, not coming into judgment or condem-
nation; John V. 24. "Blotting out sins and iniquities;" Isa.
xliii. 25; xliv. 22. Psal. Ii. 9. Jer. xviii. 23. Acts iii. 19. Cast-
ing them into the bottom of the sea; Micah vii. 19, and
sundry other expressions of a like import. The Apostle declar-
ing it by its effects, says, fitxatot, xa-taatTjdrjeoi/tai, ov T(o%%ot-. " Many
shall be made righteous," Rom. v. 19. He is made right-
eous, Sixaioi xaOistatai., who OH a juridical trial in open court, is
absolved and declared righteous. ^^
And so it may be observed that all things concerning justifi-\ '0'-2^
cation are proposed in the Scripture under a juridical scheme, \'^
or forensic trial and sentence. As (1) A judgment is supposed \
in it, concerning which, the Psalmist prays that it may not '
proceed on the terms of the law, Psal. cxliii. 2. (2) The Judge
is God himself; Isa. 1. 7, 8. Rom. viii. 33. (3) The tribunajl
whereon God sits in judgment, is the throne of grace, Heb. iv.\
16. "Therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be graciousV
unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have \
mercy upon you; for the Lord is a God of judgment," Isa.
XXX. 18. (4) A guilty person. This is the sinner, who is
irtoSixoj -ia 0£t«, SO guilty of siu, as to be obnoxious to the judg-
ment of God; T'cj Sixaiufiaifi, -tov Qiov. Rom. iii. 19 ; i. 32,
whose mouth is stopped by conviction. (5) Accusers are
ready to propose and promote the charge against the guilty
person; these arc the law, John v. 45; and conscience, Rom.
ii. 15; and Satan also. Zee. iii. 2. Rev. xii. 10. (6) The
charge is admitted and drawn up into a hand-writing in form
of law, and is laid before the tribunal of the Judge, in bar, to
the deliverance of the offender. Col. ii. 14. (7) A plea is pre-
pared in the gospel for the guilty person. And this is grace,
through the blood of Christ, the ransom paid, the atonement
made, the eternal righteousness brought in by the surety of
156 OF JUSTIFICATION.
the covenant. Rom. iii. 23 — 25. Dan. ix. 24. Eph. i. 7.
(8) Hereto, alone, the sinner betakes himself, renouncing all
other apologies or defences whatever. Psal. cxxx. 2, 3 ; cxliii.
2. Job. ix. 2, 3; xlii. 5 — 7. Luke xviii. 13. Rom. iii. 24, 25;
V. 11—19; viii. 1—3, 32, 33. Isa. liii. 5, 6. Heb. ix. 13— 15;
X. 1 — 13. 1 Pet. ii. 24. 1 John i. 7. Other plea for a sinner
before God there is none. He who knows God and himself,
will not provide or betake himself to any other. Nor will he
as I suppose trust to any other defence, were he sure of all the
angels in Heaven to plead for him. (9) To make this plea
effectual we have an advocate with the Father, and he pleads
his own propitiation for us. 1 John. ii. 1,2. (10) The sentence
hereon is absolution, on account of the ransom, blood or sacri-
fice and righteousness of Christ; with acceptation into favour,
as persons approved of God. Job xxxiii. 24. Psal. xxxii. 1, 2.
Rom. iii. 23— 25; viii. 1, 33,34. 2 Cor. v. 21. Gal. iii. 13, 14.
Of what use the declaration of this process in the justification
of a sinner may be, has been in some measure before declared.
And if many seriously considered, that all these things concur
and are required to the justification of every one that shall be
saved, it may be they would not have such slight thoughts of
sin, and the way of deliverance from the guilt of it, as they
seem to have. From this consideration did the apostle learn
that " terror of the Lord,"' which made him so earnest with
men to seek after reconciliation; 2 Cor. v. 10, 11.
I had not so long insisted on the signification of the words
in the Scripture, but that a right understanding of it, not only
excludes the pretences of the Romanists about the infusion of
a habit of charity, from being the formal cause of our justifi-
cation before God, but may also give occasion to some to
take advice, into what place or consideration they can dispose
their own personal inherent righteousness in their justification
before him.
OF JUSTIFICATION. 157
CHAPTER V.
THE DISTINCTION OF A FIRST AND SECOND JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED.
THE CONTINUATION OF JUSTIFICATION, WHEREON IT DEPENDS.
Before we inquire immediately into the nature and causes of
justification, there are some things yet previously to be consider-
ed, that we may prevent all ambiguity and misunderstanding,
about the subject to be treated of. I say, therefore, that the
evangelical justification which alone we plead about, is but
one, and is at once completed. About any other justification
before God but one, we will not contend with any. Those
who can find out another, may as they please ascribe what
they will to it, or ascribe it to what they will. Let us there-
fore consider what is ofiered of this nature.
Those of the Roman Church ground their whole doctrine of
justification upon a distinction of a double justification, which
they call the first and the second. The first justification, they
say, is the infusion or the communication to us of an inherent
principle or habit of grace or charity. Hereby they say origi-
nal sin is extinguished, and all the habits of sin are expelled.
This justification they say is by faith, the obedience and satis-
faction of Christ being the only meritorious cause thereof. Only
they dispute many things about preparations for it, and dispo-
sitions to it. Under those terms the Council of Trent included
the doctrine of the schoolmen about rneritum de congriio, as
both Hosius and Andradius confess in the defence of that coun-
cil. And as they are explained, they come much to one; how-
ever the council warily avoided the name of merit, with re-
spect to this their first justification. And the use of faith herein,
(which with them is no more but a general assent to divine
revelation) is to bear the principal part in these preparations.
So that to be justified by faith according to them, is lo have the
mind prepared by this kind of believing to receive gratiam
gratumfacientem, a habit of grace expelling sin, and making
us acceptable to God. For upon this believing with those other
duties of contrition and repentance, which must accompany it,
it is meet and congruous to divine wisdom, goodness, and faith-
fulness to give us that grace whereby we are justified. And
this according to them is that justification, whereof the Apostle
Paul treats in his Epistles, from the procurement whereof he
14
158 OF JTTSTIFICATION.
excludes all the works of the law. The second justification is
an effect or consequent hereof. And the proper formal cause
thereof is good works, proceeding from this principle of grace
and love. Hence are they the righteousness wherewith be-
lievers are righteous before God, whereby they merit eternal
life. The righteousness of works they call it, and suppose it
taught by the Apostle James. This they constantly affirm to
make us jiisios ex injustis, (from being unrighteous to be right-
eous) wherein they are followed by others. For this is the
way that most of them take to salve the seeming repugnancy
between the Apostle Paul and James. Paul they say treats
of the first justification only, whence he excludes all works,
for it is by faith in the manner before described. But James
treats of the second justification, which is by good works. So
Bellarmine lib. 2, cap. 16, and lib. 4, cap. IS. And it is the ex-
press determination of those at Trent. Sess. 6, cap. 10. This
distinction was coined for no other end, but to bring in confu-
sion into the whole doctrine of the gospel. Justification through
the free grace of God by faith in the blood of Christ is evacuated
by it. Sanctification is turned into a justification, and corrupted
by making the fruits of it meritorious. The whole nature of
evangelical justification, consisting in the gratuitous pardon of
sin and the imputation of righteousness, as the Apostle ex-
pressly aftirms, and the declaration of a believing sinner to be
righteous thereon, as the word alone signifies, is utterly defeat-
ed by it,
Howbeit others have embraced this distinction also, though
not absolutely in their sense. So do the Socinians. Yea it
must be allowed in some sense by all that hold our inherent
righteousness to be the cause of, or to have any influence upon
our justification before God. For they allow of a justification
which in order of nature is antecedent to works truly gracious
and evangelical. But consequential to such works, there is a
justification differing at least in degree, if not in nature and
kind, upon the difference of its formal cause which is our new
obedience, from the former. But they mostly say, it is only the
continuation of our justification and the increase of it as to de-
grees, that they intend by it. And if they may be allowed to
turn sanctification into justification, and to make a progress
therein, or an increase thereof, either in the root or fruit, to be
a new justification, they may make twenty justifications as
well as two for aught I know. For therein "the inward man
is renewed day by day," 2 Cor. iv. 16; and believers "go from
OF JUSTIFICATION. 159
Strength to strength," are "changed from glory to glory;" 2
Cor, iii. IS, by the addition of one grace to another in their ex-
ercise, 2 Pet. i. 5-S, and increasing with the increase of God,
Col. ii. 19, do in all things grow up into him who is the head,
Ephes. iv. 15. And if their justification consist herein, they
are justified anew every day. I shall therefore do these two
things. (1) Show that this distinction is both unscriptural and
irrational. (2) Declare what is the continuation of our justifi-
cation, and whereon it depends.
Justification by faith in the blood of Christ, may be consider-
ed either as to the nature and essence of it, or as to its manifes-
tation and declaration. The manifestation of it is twofold. (1)
Initial in this life. (2) Solemn and com.plete at the day of
judgment, whereof we shall treat afterwards. The manifesta-
tion of it in this life respects either the souls and consciences of
them that are justified, or others, that is, the church and the
world. And each of these liave the name of justification as-
signed to them, though our real justification before God be a
ways one and the same. But a man may be really justified'
before God, and yet not have the evidence or assurance of it
in his own mind. Wherefore that evidence or assurance is not
of the nature or essence of that faith whereby we are justified,
nor does it necessarily accompany our justification. But this
manifestation of a man's own justification to himself, although
it depend on many especial causes, which are not necessary
to his justification absolutely before God, is not a second justi-
fication when it is attained; but only the application of the
former to his conscience by the Holy Ghost. There is also a
manifestation of it with respect to others, which in like man-
ner depends on other causes than does our justification before
God absolutely ; yet is it not a second justification. For it de-
pends wholly on the visible effects of that faith whereby we
are justified, as the Apostle James instructs us; yet is it only
our single justification before God, evidenced and declared to
his glory, the benefit of others, and increase of our own reward.
There is also a two-fold justification before God mentioned
in the Scripture. (1) By the works of the law, Rom. ii, 13;
X. 5. Matt. xix. 15 — 19. Hereto is required an absolute con-
formity to the whole law of God in our natures, all the faculties
of our souls, all the principles of our moral operations, with
perfect actual obedience to all its commands, in all instances
of duty, both for matter and manner. For he is " cursed who
continueth not in all things that are written in the law to do
)
160 OF JUSTIFICATION.
them." And he that breaks any one commandment is guihy
of the breach of the whole law. Hence the Apostle concludes,
that none can be justified by the law, because all have sinned.
(2) There is a justification by grace through faith in the blood
of Christ, whereof we treat. And these ways of justification
are contrary, proceeding on terms directly contradictory, and
cannot be made consistent with, or subservient one to the
other. But as we shall manifest afterwards the confounding
of them both, by mixing them together, is that which is aimed
at in this distinction of a first and second justification. But
whatever respects it may have, that justification which we
have before God, in his sight through Jesus Christ, is but one,
and at once full and complete, and this distinction is a vain
and fond invention : for
1. As it is explained by the Papists it is exceedingly dero-
gatory to the merit of Christ. For it leaves it no eflect towards
us, but only the infusion of a habit of charity. When that is
done, all that remains with respect to our salvation is to be
^wrought by ourselves. Christ has only merited the first grace
for us, that we therewith and thereby may merit life eternal,
* The merit of Christ being confined in its effect to the first jus-
tification, it has no immediate influence upon any grace, privi-
lege, mercy, or glory that follow thereon ; but they are all
effects of that second justification which is purely by works.
But this is openly contrary to the whole tenor of the Scripture.
For although there be an order of God's appointment, wherein
we are to be made partakers of evangelical privileges in grace
and glory, one before another, yet are they all of them the
immediate effects of the death and obedience of Christ ; who
"hath obtained for us eternal redemption," Heb. ix, 12, and
is " the author of eternal salvation to all that do obey him,"
Heb. V. 9. "Having by one offering for ever perfected them
that are sanctified." And those who allow of a secondary, if
not of a second justification by our own inherent personal
righteousnesses, are also guilty hereof, though not in the same
degree with them. For whereas they ascribe to it, our acquittal
from all charge of sin after the first justification, and a right-
eousness accepted in judgment, in the judgment of God, as if
it were complete and perfect, whereon depends our final abso-
lution and reward, it is evident that the immediate efficacy of
the satisfaction and merit of Christ, has its bounds assigned to
it in the first justification; which whether it be taught in the
Scripture or no, we shall afterwards inquire.
OF JUSTIFICATION.
]61
2. More by this distinction is ascribed to ourselves working
by virtue of inherent grace, as to the merit and procurement of
spiritual and eternal good, than to the blood of Christ. For
that only procures the first grace and justification for us.
Thereof alone it is the meritorious cause; or as others ex-
press it, we are made partakers of the effects of it in the pardon
of sins past. But by virtue of this grace, we do ourselves
obtain, procure or merit another, a second, a complete justifi-
cation, the continuance of the favour of God, and all the fruits
of it, with life eternal and glory. So do our works at least
perfect and complete the merit of Christ, without which it is
imperfect. And those who assign the continuation of our jus-
tification wherein all the effects of divine favour and grace are
contained to our own personal righteousness, as also final jus-
tification before God as the pleadable cause of it, do follow
their steps to the best of my understanding. But such things
as these, may be disputed ; in debates of which kind it is in-
credible almost what influence on the minds of men, traditions,
prejudices, subtlety of invention and arguing obtain, to divert
them from real thoughts of the things about which they con-
tend, with respect to themselves and their own condition. If
by any means such persons can be called home to themselves,
and find leisure to think how, and by what means they shall
come to appear before the high God, to be freed from the sen-
tence of the law, and the curse due to sin, to have a pleadable
righteousness at the judgment seat of God before which they
stand, especially if a real sense of these things be implanted
in their minds by the convincing power of the Holy Ghost, all
their subtile arguments and pleas for the mighty efficacy of
their own personal righteousness, will sink in their minds like
water at the return of the tide, and leave nothing but mud
and defilement behind them.
3. This distinction of two justifications as used and im-
proved by those of the Roman church, leaves us indeed no
justification at all. Something there is, in the branches of it,
of sanctification, but of justification notlung at all. Their first
justification in the infusion of a habit or principle of grace, to
the expulsion of all habits of sin, is sanctification, and nothing
else. And we never contended that our justification in such
a sense, if any will take it in such a sense, consists in the im-
putation of the righteousness of Christ. And this justification,
if any will needs call it so, is capable of degrees, both of in-
crease in itself, and of exercise in its fruits, as was newly
14*
162 OF JUSTIFICATION.
declared. But not only to call this our own justification, v/ith
a general respect to the notion of the word, as a making of us
personally and inherently righteous, but to plead that this is the
justification through faith in the blood of Christ, declared in
the Scripture, is to exclude the only true evangelical justifica-
tion from any place in .rehgion. The second branch of the
distinction has much in it like justification by the law, but
nothing of that which is declared in the gospel. So that this
distinction instead of coining us two justifications, according
to the gospel, has left us none at all. For
4. There is no countenance given to this distinction in the
Scripture. There is indeed mention therein, as we observed
before, of a double justification ; the one by the law, the other
according to the gospel.- .But that either of these should on any
account be sub-distinguished into a first and second of the
same kind, that is either according to the law or the gospel,
there is nothing in the Scripture to intimate. For this second
justification is no way applicable to what the Apostle James
discourses 'on that subject. He treats of justification; but
speaks not one word of an increase of it, or addition to it, of a
first or second. Besides he speaks expressly of him that boasts
of faith, which being without works is a dead faith. But he
who has the first justification, by the confession of our adver-
saries, has a true living taith, formed and enlivened by charity.
And he uses the sani^' testimony concerning the justification of
Abraham that Paul does, and therefore does not intend another
but the same, tliough in a diverse respect. Nor does any be-
liever learn the least of it in his own experience; nor without
a design to serve a further turn, would it ever have entered
the minds of sober men on the reading of the Scripture. And
it is the bane of spiritual truth, for men in the pretended de-
claration of it, to coin arbitrary distinctions without Scripture
ground for them, and obtrude them as belonging to the doc-
trine they treat of. They serve to no other end or purpose, but
only to lead the minds of men from the substance of what
they ought to attend to, and to engage all sorts of persons in
endless strites and contentions; If the authors of this distinc-
tion would but go over the places in the Scripture, where men-
tion is made of our justification before God, and make a dis-
tribution of. them into the respective parts of their distinction,
they would quickly find themselves at an utter loss.
5. There is that in the Scripture ascribed to our first justifica-
tion, if they will needs call it so, which leaves no room for
OF JUSTIFICATION.
their second feigned justification. For tiie sole foundation and
pretence of this distinction, is a denial of those things to belong
to our justification by the blood of Christ, which the Scripture
expressly assigns to it. Let us take out some instances of what
belongs to the first, and we shall quickly see how little it is,
yea, that there is nothing left for the pretended second justifica-
tion. For (1) therein do we receive the complete pardon and
forgiveness of our sins, Rom. iv. 4, 6, 7. Ephes. i. 7; iv. 32.
Acts xxvi. IS. (2) Thereby are we "made righteous," Rom.
V. 19; X. 4. And (3) are freed from "condemnation, judg-
ment, and death," John iii. 16, 19; v. 25. Rom. vhi. 1. (4)
Are reconciled to God, Rom. v. 9, 10. 2 Cor. v. 21, 22. And
(5) have peace with him, and access into the favour wherein
we stand by grace, with the advantages and consolations that
depend thereon in a sense of his love. Rom. v. 1 — 5. And
(6) we have adoption therewith and all its privileges ; John
i. 12. And in particular (7) a right and title to the whole in-
heritance of glory, Acts xxvi. 18. Rom. viii. 17. And (8)
hereon "eternal .life follows," Rom. viii. 30; vi. 23. Which
things will be again immediately spoken to upon another oc-
casion. And if there be any thing now left for their second
justification to do as such, let them take it as their own ; these
things are all of them ours, or belong to that one justification
which we assert. Wherefore it is evident that either the first
justification overthrows the second, rendering it needless; or
the second destroys the first, by taking away what essentially
belongs to it; we must therofore part with the one or the other,
for consistent they are not. But that which gives countenance
to the fiction and artifice of this distinction, and a great many
more, is a dislike of the doctrine of the grace of God, and jus-
tification from thence by faith in the blood of Christ, which
some endeavour hereby to send out of the way upon a pre-
tended sleeveless errand, whilst they dress up their own right-
eousness in its robes, and exalt it into the room and dignity
thereof
But there seems to be more of reality and difficulty in what
is pleaded concerning the continuation of our justification.
For those that are freely justified, are continued in that state
until they are glorified. By justification they are really chang-
ed into a new spiritual state and condition, and have a new
relation given them to God and Christ, to the law and the gos-
pel. And it is inquired what it is whereon their continuation
in this state, on their part, depends ; or what is required of them
164 OF JUSTIFICATIOX.
that they may be justified to the end. And this as some say is
not faith alone, but also the works of sincere obedience. And
none can deny but that they are required of all them that are
justified, whilst they continue in a state of justification on this
side glory, which next and immediately ensues thereto. But
whether upon our justification at first before God, faith be
immediately dismissed from its place and ofiice, and its work
be given over to works, so as that the continuation of our jus-
tification should depend on our own personal obedience, and
not on the renewed application of faith to Christ and his
righteousness, is worth our inquiry. Only I desire the reader
to observe that whereas the necessity of owning a personal
obedience in justified persons, is on all hands absolutely agreed,
the seeming diti'erence that is herein, concerns not the sub-
stance of the doctrine of justification, but the manner of ex-
pressing our conceptions concerning the order of the disposition
of God's grace, and our own duty, to edification, wherein I
shall use my own liberty, as it is meet others should do theirs.
And I shall otfer my thoughts hereon in the ensuing observations.
1. Justification is such a work as is at once completed in all
the causes, and the whole effect of it, though not as to the full
possession of all that it gives right and title to. For (1) All
our sins past, present, and to come, were at once imputed to
and laid upon Jesus Christ; in what sense, we shall afterwards
inquire. " He was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was
upon him, and with his stripes are we healed. All we like
sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own
way, and the Lord hath made to meet on him the iniquities of
us all," Isa. lin. 6, 7. " Who his own self bare our sins in his
own body on the tree," 1 Pet. ii. 24. The assertions being
indefinite without exception or limitation, are equivalent to uni-
versals. All our sins were on him, he bare them all at once,
and therefore once died for all. (2) He did therefore at once
"finish transgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation
for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness," Dan.
ix. 24. At once he expiated all our sins; for " by himself he
purged our sins, and then sat down at the right hand of the
majesty on high," Heb. i. 3. And we are sanctified or dedi-
cated to God through the " offering of the body of Christ once
for all; fur by one offering he has perfected" (consummated,
completed as to their spiritual state) " them that are sanctified,^'
Heb. X. 10, 14. He never will do more than he has actually
OF JUSTIFICATION. 165
done already for the expiation of all our sins from first to last;
for "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." I do not say
that hereupon our justification is complete, but only that the
meritorious procuring cause of it was at once completed, and
is never to be renewed or repeated any more; all the inquiry
is concerning the renewed application of it to our souls and
consciences, whether that be by faith alone, or by the works of
righteousness which we do. (3) By our actual believing with
justifying faith, believing on Christ, or his name, we do receive
him, and thereby on our first justification become the sons of
God, John i. 12. That is, joint heirs with Christ, and heirs of
God, Rom. viii. 17. Hereby we have a right to, and an inter-
est in all the benefits of his mediation ; which is to be at once
completely justified. "For in him we are complete," Col. ii.
10. " For by the faith that is in him we receive the forgiveness
of sins, and a lot or inheritance among all them that are sanc-
tified," Acts xxvi. 18, being immediately "justified from all
things from which we could not be justified by the law," Acts
xiii. 39; yea God thereon " blesseth us with all spiritual bless-
ings in heavenly things in Christ," Ephes. i. 3. All these
things are absolutely inseparable from our first believing in
him, and therefore our justification is at once complete. In
particular (4) on our believing, all our sins are forgiven. "He
hath quickened you together with him, having forgiven you
all trespasses," Col. ii. 13 — 15. "For in him we have re-
demption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace," Ephes. i. 7; which one
place obviates all the petulant exceptions of some against
the consistency of the free grace of God in the pardon of
sins, and the satisfaction of Christ in the procurement thereof
(5) There is hereon nothing to be laid to the charge of them
that are so justified. For "he that believeth hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from
death unto life," John v. 24, And " who shall lay any thing
unto the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifieth, it is
Christ that died," Rom. viii. 33, 34; and there "is no con-
demnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus." For "being
justified by faith we have peace with God," Rom. v. 1. And
(6) we have that blessedness hereon whereof in this life we
are capable, Rom. iv. 5, 6. From all which it appears that our
justification is at once complete. And (7) it must be so or no
man can be justified in this world. For no time can be assigned,
nor measure of obedience be limited, whereon it may be sup-
166 OF JUSTIFICATION.
posed that any one comes to be justified before God, who is
not so on his first believing. For the Scripture no where as-
signs any such time or measure. And to say that no man is
completely justified in the sight of God in this life, is at once to
overthrow all that is taught in the Scriptures concerning justi-
fication, and therewith all peace with God and comfort of be-
lievers. But a man acquitted upon his legal trial, is at once
discharged of all that the law has against him.
2. Upon this complete justification, believers are obliged to
universal obedience to God. The law is not abolished but es-
tablished by faith. It is neither abrogated nor dispensed with
by such an interpretation as should take off its obligation in
any thing that it requires, nor as to the degree and manner
wherein it requires it. Nor is it possible it should be so. For
it is nothing but the rule of that obedience which the nature
of God and man makes necessary from the one to the other.
And that is an antinomianism of the worst sort, and most de-
rogatory to the law of God, which affirms it to be divested
of its power, to oblige to perfect obedience, so that what is
not so, shall (as it were in despite of the law) be accepted as
if it were so, to the end for which the law requires it. There
is no medium, but that either the law is utterly abolished, and
so there is no sin, for " where there is no law, there is no trans-
gression;" or it must be allowed to require the same obedience
that it did at its first institution; and to the same degree. Nei-
ther is it in the power of any man living to keep his conscience
from judging and condemning that,^whatever it be, wherein
he is convinced that he comes short of the perfection of the
law. Wherefore,
3. The commanding power of the law in positive precepts
and prohibitions which justified persons are subject to, makes
and constitutes all their inconformities to it to be no less truly
and properly sins in their own nature, than they would be if
their persons were obnoxious to the curse of it. This they are
not, nor can be; for to be obnoxious to the curse of the law,
and to be justified, are contradictory; but to be subject to the
commands of the law, and to be justified are not so. But it is
a subjection to the commanding power of the law, and not
an obnoxiousness to the curse of the law, that constitutes
the nature of sin in its transgression. Wherefore that com-
plete justification which is at once, though it dissolve the
obligation on the sinner to punishment by the curse of the law,
yet does it not annihilate the commanding authority of the law,
OP JTTSTIFICATION. 167
to them that are justified, that what is sin in others, should
not be so in them. See Rom. viii. 1, 33, 34.
Hence in the first justification of believing sinners, all future
sins are remitted as to any actual obligation to the curse of the
law, unless they should fall into such sins as should ipsofacto^
forfeit their justified estate, and transfer them from the cove-
nant of grace, to the covenant of works, which we believe that
God in his faithfulness will preserve them from. And although
sin cannot be actually pardoned before it be actually commit-
ted; yet may the obligation to the curse of the law be virtually
taken away from such sins in justified persons as are consist-
ent with a justified estate, or the terms of the covenant of
grace, antecedently to their actual commission. God at once
in this sense "forgiveth all their iniquities, and healeth all their
diseases, redeemeth their life from destruction, and crowneth
them with loving kindness and mercies," Psal. ciii. 2, 3. Fu-
ture sins are not so pardoned as that when they are committed,
they should be no sins, which cannot be, unless the command-
ing power of the law be abrogated. But their respect to the
curse of the law, or their power to oblige the justified person
thereto, is taken away.
Still there abides the true nature of sin in every inconformity
to or transgression of the law in justified persons, which stands
in need of daily actual pardon, for " there is no man that liveth
and sinneth not," " and if we say that we have no sin, we do
but deceive ourselves." None are more sensible of the guilt of
sin, none are more troubled for it, none are more earnest in
supplications for the pardon of it, than justified persons. For
this is the effect of the sacrifice of Christ applied to the souls
of believers, as the Apostle declares, Heb. x. 1-4, 10, 14, that
it takes away conscience, condemning the sinner for sin, with
respect to the curse of the law ; but it does not take away con-
science, condemning sin in the sinner, which on all considera-
tions of God and themselves, of the law and the gospel, requires
repentance on the part of the sinner, and actual pardon on the
part of God.
Whereas therefore one essential part of justification consists
in the pardon of our sins, and sins cannot be actually pardoned
before they are actually committed, our present inquiry is,
whereon the continuation of our justification depends, notwith-
standing the intervention of sin after we are justified, whereby
such sins are actually pardoned, and our persons are continued
in a state of acceptance with God, and have their right to life
168 OP JUSTIFICATION.
and glory uninterrupted. Justification is at once complete, in
the imputation of a perfect rigiiteousness, the grant of a right
and title to the heavenly inheritance, the actual pardon of all
past sins, and the virtual pardon of future sins, hut how or by
what means, on what terms and conditions this state is contin-
ued to those who are once justified, whereby their righteous-
ness is everlasting, their title to life and glory indefeasible, and
all their sins are actually pardoned, is to be inquired.
For answer to this inquiry,! say (1) "it is God thatjustifieth,"
and therefore the continuation of our justification is his act also.
And this on his part depends on "• the immutability of his
counsel," the unchangeableness of the everlasting covenant,
which is "ordered in all things and sure," the faithfulness of
his promises, the efficacy of his grace, his coiuplacency in the
propitiation of Christ, with the power of his intercession, and
the irrevocable grant of the Holy Ghost to them that believe;
which things are not of our present inquiry.
2. Some say that on our part the continuation of this state
of our justification, depends on the condition of good works,
that is, that they are of the same consideration and use with
faith itself herein. In our justification itself there is, they will
grant, somewhat peculiar to faith; but as to the continuation
of our justification, faith and works have the same influence
upon it. Yea, some seem to ascribe it distinctly to works in
an especial manner, with this only proviso, that they be done
in faith. For my part I cannot understand that the continua-
tion of our justification has any other dependencies, than has
our justification itself. As faith alone is required to the one,
so faith alone is required to the other, although its operations
and effects in the discharge of its duty and office in justification,
and the continuation of it are diverse, nor can it otherwise be.
To clear this assertion, two things are to be observed.
1. That the continuation of our justification is the continua-
tion of the imputation of righteousness and the pardon of sins.
I do still suppose the imputation of righteousness to concur to
our justification, although we have not yet examined what
righteousness it is that is imputed. But that God in our justi-
fication imputes righteousness to us, is so expressly affirmed by
the Apostle, that it must not be called in question. Now the
first act of God in the imputation of righteousness cannot be
repeated. And the actual pardon of sin after justification, is
an effect and consequence of that imputation of righteousness.
If any man sin, there is a propitiation; deliver him, I have
OF JUSTIFICATION.
169
found a ransom. Wherefore unto this actual pardon, there is
nothingrequired, but the application of that righteousness which
is the cause of it; and this is done by faith only.
2. The continuation of our justification, is before God or in
the sight of God, no less than our absolute justification is.
We speak not of the sense and evidence of it to cur own souls
to peace with God ; nor of the evidencing and manifestation
of it to others by its effects ; but of the continuance of it in
the sight of God. Whatever therefore is the means, condition,
or cause hereof, is pleadable before God, and ought to be
pleaded to that purpose. So then the inquiry is,
What it is, that, when a justified person is guilty of sin (as
guilty he is more or less every day) and his conscience is
pressed with a sense thereof, as that only thing which can
endanger or intercept his justified estate, his favour with God,
and title to glory, he betakes himself to, or ought so to do, for
the continuance of his state, and pardon of his sins; what he
pleads to that purpose, and what is available thereto. That
this is not his own obedience, his personal righteousness, or
fulfilling the condition of the new covenant, is evident from
(1) the experience of believers themselves; (2) the testimony
of Scripture, and (3) the example of those whose cases are
recorded therein.
1. Let the experience of those that believe be inquired into;
for their consciences are continually exercised herein. What
is it that they betake themselves to, what is it that they plead
with God, for the continuance of the pardon of their sins, and
the acceptance of their persons before him ? Is it any thing
but sovereign grace and mercy, through the blood of Christ.^
Are not all the arguments which they plead to this end, taken
from the topics of the name of God, his mercy, grace, faithful-
ness, tender compassion, covenant and promises, all manifested,
and exercised in and through the Lord Christ and his mediation
alone? Do they not herein place their only trust and con-
fidence for this end, that their sins may be pardoned, and their
persons, though every way unworthy in themselves, beaccepted
with God? Does any other thought enter mto their hearts?
Do they plead their own righteousness, obedience, and duties
to this purpose? Do they leave the prayer of the Publican,
and betake themselves to that of the Pharisee? And is it not
of faith alone, which is that grace whereby they apply them-
selves to the mercy or grace of God through the mediation of
Christ? It is true that faith herein, works and acts itself in
15
170 OP JUSTIFICATION.
and by godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation, self-judging,
and abhorrence, fervency in prayer and supplications, with an
humble waiting for an answer of peace from God, with engage-
ments to renewed obedience. But it is faith alone that makes
applications to grace in the blood of Christ, for the continua-
tion of our justified estate, expressing itself in those other ways
and effects mentioned, from none of which a believing soul
expects the mercy aimed at.
2. The Scripture expressly declares this to be the only way
of the continuation of our justification. 1 John ii. 1,2. "These
things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man
sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins." It is
required of those that are justified, that they sin not; it is their
duty not to sin; but yet it is not so required of them, as that
if in any thing they fail of their duty they should immediately
lose the privilege of their justification. Wherefore on a sup-
position of sin, "if any man sin," as "there is no man that
iiveth and sinneth not," what way is prescribed for such per-
sons to take, what are they to apply themselves to, that their
sin may be pardoned, and their acceptance with God con-
tinued; that is, for the continuation of their justification? The
course in this case directed to by the apostle, is none other but
the application of our souls by faith to the Lord Christ, as our
advocate with the Father, on the account of the propitiation
that he has made for our sins. Under the consideration of this
double act of his sacerdotal office, his oblation and intercession,
he is the object of our faith in our absolute justification, and
so he is as to the continuation of it. So our whole progress in
our justified estate in all the degrees of it is ascribed to faith
alone.
It is no part of our inquiry, what God requires of them that
are justified. There is no grace, no duty, for the substance of
them, nor for the maimer of thoir performance, that are re-
quired either by the law or the gospel, but they are obliged to
them. Where they are omitted, we acknowledge that the
guilt of sin is contracted, and that attended with such aggra-
vations, as some will not own or allow to be confessed to God
himself. Hence in particular, the faith and grace of believers
constantly and deeply exercise themselves in godly sorrow,
repentance, humiliation for sin, and confession of it before God,
upon their apprehensions of its guilt. And these duties are so
far necessary to the continuation of our justification, as that a
OF JUSTIFICATION.
171
justified estate cannot consist with the sins and vices that are
opposite to them. So the apostle affirms, that " if we hve after
the flesh we shall die;" Rom. viii. 13. He that does not care-
fully avoid falling into the fire or water, or other things im-
mediately destructive of life natural, cannot live. But these
are not the things whereon life depends. Nor have the best
of our duties any other respect to the continuation of our jus-
tification, but only as in them we are preserved from those
things which are contrary to it, and destructive of it. But the
sole question is upon what the continuation of our justification
depends, not concerning what duties are required of us, in the
way of our obedience. If this be that which is intended in
this position, the continuation of our justification depends on
our own obedience and good works, or that our own obedience
and good works are the condition of the continuation of our
justification, namely, that God indispensably requires good
works and obedience in all that are justified, so that a justi-
fied estate is inconsistent with the neglect of them ; it is readily
granted, and I shall never contend with any about the way
whereby they choose to express the conceptions of their minds.
But if it be inquired what it is whereby we immediately con-
cur in a way of duty to the continuation of our justified estate,
that is, the pardon of our sins and acceptance with God, we
say it is faith alone. For " the just shall live by faith," Rom.
i. 17. And as the apostle applies this divine testimony to
prove our first or absolute justification to be by faith alone;
so does he also apply it to the continuation of our justification,
as that which is by the same means only, Heb. x. 38, 39.
" Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back,
my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of
them that draw back unto perdition: but of them that believe,
to the saving of the soul." The drawing back to perdition
includes the loss of a justified estate really so or in profession.
In opposition thereto the apostle places believing to the saving
of the soul ; that is, to the continuation of justification to the
end. And herein it is, that " the just live by faith," and the
loss of this life can only be by unbelief. So " the life which
we now live in the flesh, is by the faith of the Son of God,
who loved us and gave himself for us," Gal. ii. 20. The life
which we now lead in the flesh, is the continuation of our
justification, a life of righteousness and acceptance with God,
in opposition to a life by the works of the law, as the next
172
OF JUSTIFICATION.
words declare, verse 21. " I do not frustrate the grace of God ;
for if righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in
vain;" and this life is by faith in Christ as he "loved us and
gave himself for us," that is, as he was a propitiation for our
sins. This then is the only way, means, and cause on our part
of the preservation of this life, of the continuance of our justi-
fication ; and herein are we " kept by tiie power of God
through faith unto salvation." Again, if the continuation of
our justification depends on our own works of obedience, then
is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us only with respect
to our justification at first, or our first justification as some
speak. And this indeed is the doctrine of the Roman school.
They teach that the righteousness of Christ is so far imputed
to us, that on the account thereof God gives us justifying
grace, and thereby the remission of sin in their sense, whence
they allow it the meritorious cause of our justification. But
on a supposition thereof, or the reception of that grace, we are
continued to be justified before God by the works we perform
by virtue of that grace received. And though some of them,
as Vasquez, rise so high as to affirm, that this grace and the
works of it, need no further respect to the righteousness of
Christ, to deserve our second justification and life eternal ; yet
many of them affirm that it is still from the consideration of
the merit of Christ that they are so meritorious. And the
same, for the substance of it, is the judgment of some of them,
who affirm the continuation of our justification to depend on
our own works, setting aside that ambiguous term of merit.
For it is on the account of the righteousness of Christ they
say, that our own works, or imperfect obedience, are so ac-
cepted with God, as that the continuation of our justification
depends thereon. But the apostle gives us another account
hereof; Rom. V. 1 — 3. For he distinguishes three things; (]) our
access into the grace of God. (2) Our standing in that grace.
(3) Our glorying in that station against all opposition. By
the first he expresses our absolute justification ; by the second
our continuation in the state whereinto we are admitted by it;
and by the third, the assurance of that continuation, notwith-
standing all the oppositions we meet with. And all these he
ascribes equally to faith, without the intermixture of any
other cause or condition. And other places, expressly to the
same purpose might be pleaded.
3. The examples of them that believed and were justified
OF JUSTIFICATION. 173
which are recorded in the Scripture, all bear witness to the
same truth. The continuation of the justification of Abraham
before God, is declared to have been by faith only; Rom. iv. 3.
For the instance of his justification given by the Apostle from
Gen. XV. 6, was long after he was justified absolutely. And if
our first justification and the continuation of it, did not depend
absolutely on the same cause, the instance of the one could not
be produced for a proof of the way and means of the other, as
here they are. And David, when a justified believer, not only
places the blessedness of man in the free remission of sins, in
opposition to his own works in general; Rom. iv. 6, 7, but in
his own particular case ascribes the continuation of his justifi-
cation and acceptance before God, to grace, mercy, and forgive-
ness alone, which are no otherwise received but by faith. Psal.
cxxx. 3 — 5; cxliii. 2. All other works and duties of obedience
accompany faith in the continuation of our justified estate, as
necessary effects and fruits of it, but not as causes, means,
or conditions whereon that effect is suspended. It is patient
waiting by faith, that brings in the full accomplishment of the
promises, Heb. vi. 12, 16. Wherefore there is but one justifi-
cation, and that of one kind only, wherein we are concerned in
this disputation. The Scripture makes mention of no more;
and that is the justification of an ungodly person by faith. Nor
shall we admit of the consideration of any other. For if there
be a second justification, it must be of the same kind with the
first, or of another; if it be of the same kind, then the sa^e
person is often justified with the same kind of justification, or
at least more than once; and so on just reason ought to be
often baptized. If it be not of the same kind, then the same
person is justified before God with two sorts of justification, of
both of which the Scripture is utterly silent. And the contin-
uation of our justification depends solely on the same causes
with our justification itself.
15^
174 EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS,
CHAPTER VI.
EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS, THE NATURE AND USE OF IT.
FINAL JUDGMENT, AND ITS RESPECT TO JUSTIFICATION.
The things which we have discoursed concerning the first and
second justification, and concerning the continuation of justifi-
cation, have no other design but only to clear the principal sub-
ject whereof we treat, from what does not necessarily belong
unto it. For until all things that are either really heterogene-
ous or otherwise superfluous, are separated from it, we cannot
understand aright the true state of the question about the na-
ture and causes of our justification before God. For we intend
one only justification, namely, that whereby God at once freely
by his grace justifies a convinced sinner through faith in the
blood of Christ. Whatever else any will be pleased to call
justification, we are not concerned in it, nor are the consciences
of them that believe. To the same purpose we must therefore
briefly also consider what is usually disputed about our own
personal righteousness, with a justification thereon, as also
what is called sentential justification at the day of judgment.
And I shall treat no further of them in this place, but only as
it is necessary to free the principal subject under consideration,
from being intermixed with them, as really it is not concerned
in them. For what influence our own personal righteousness
hath upon our justification before God, will be afterwards par-
ticularly examined. Here we shall only consider such a notion
of it, as seems to interfere with it, and disturb the right under-
standing of it. But yet I say concerning this also, that it rather
belongs to the difference that will be among us in the ex-
pression of our conceptions about spiritual things whilst we
know but in part, than to the substance of the doctrine itself.
And on such diflerences no breach of charity can ensue, whilst
there is a mutual grant of that liberty of mind, without which
it will not be preserved one moment.
It is therefore by some apprehended that there is an evan-
gelical justification, upon our evangelical personal righteous-
ness. This they distinguish from that justification which is by
faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, in
the sense wherein they allow it. For the righteousness of
Christ is our legal righteousness, whereby we have pardon of
THE NATURE AND USE OF IT. 175
sin, and acquittal from the sentence of the law, on the ac-
count of his satisfaction and merit. But moreover they say,
that as there is a personal inherent righteousness required of us,
so there is a justification by the gospel thereon. For by our
faith and the plea of it, we are justified from the charge of un-
belief; by our sincerity and the plea of it, we are justified from
the charge of hypocrisy; and so by all other graces and duties
from the charge of the contrary sins in commission or omission,
so far as such sins are inconsistent with the terms of the cove-
nant of grace. How this differs from the second justifica-
tion before God, which some say we have by works on the
supposition of the pardon of sin for the satisfaction of Christ,
and the infusion of an habit of grace enabling us to perform
those works, is declared by those who so express themselves.
Some add, that this inherent personal evangelical righteous-
ness, is the condition on our part of our legal righteousness, or
of the imputation of the rigliteousness of Christ unto our justi-
fication, or the pardon of sin. And those by whom the satis-
faction and merit of Christ are denied, make it the only and
whole condition of our absolute justification before God. So
speak all the Socinians constantly. For they deny our obe-
dience to Christ to be either the meritorious or efficient cause
of our justification; only they say it is the condition of it,
without which God has decreed that we shall not be made
partakers of the benefit thereof. So does Socinus himself: " Our
works, that is, the obedience we render to Christ, though
neither the efficient nor meritorious cause, are yet the indispen-
sable cause of our justification in the sight of God and of our
eternal [life] * * We must beware of supposing that holiness
and innocence of life is the effect of our justification before
God ; or of affirming that it is the efficient or impelling cause of
our justification before God; it is only a cause, without which
God has decreed that we shall not obtain that justification."*
And in all their discourses to this purpose, they assert our per-
sonal righteousness and holiness, or our obedience to the com-
mands of Christ, which they make to be the form and essence
of faith, to be the condition whereon we obtain justification or
* Sunt opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia quam Christo praestamus,
licet nee efficiens, nee meritoria, tamen causa est (ut vocant) sine qua non, Justi-
ficationis coram Deo atque aeternBB nostrse * * * Ut cavendum est ne vitae sanc-
titatem atque innocentiam effuctum jnstificationis nostrse coram Deo esse creda-
mus, neque illain nostras coram Deo jnstificationis causam efficientem aut impulsi-
vam esse atfinnemus; sed tantummodo causamsine qua earn justificationem nobis
non contingere decrevit Deus.
176
EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS,
the remission of sins. And indeed, considering what their opin-
ion is concerning the person of Christ, with their denial of his
satisfaction and merit, it is impossible (hey should frame any-
other idea of justification in their minds. But what some among
ourselves intend by a compliance with them herein, who are
not necessitated thereto by a prepossession with their opinions
about the person and mediation of Christ, I know not. For as
for the Socinians, all their notions about grace, conversion to
God, justification, and the like articles of our religion, are no-
thing but what they are necessarily cast upon by their hypothe-
sis about the person of Christ.
At present I shall only inquire into that peculiar evangelical
justification which is asserted to be the effect of our own per-
sonal righteousness, or to be granted us thereon. And here we
may observe,
1. That God requires in and by the gospel a sincere obe-
dience of all who believe, to be performed in and by their own
persons, though through the aids of grace supplied to them by
Jesus Christ. He requires indeed obedience, duties, and works
of righteousness in and of all persons whatever. But the con-
sideration of the works which are performed before believing, is
excluded by all from any causality or interest in our justification
before God. At least whatever any may discourse of the ne-
cessity of such works in a way of preparation to believing
(whereto we have spoken before) none bring them into the
verge of works evangelical, or obedience of faith, which would
imply a contradiction. But that the works inquired after are
necessary to all believers, is granted by all; on what grounds
and to what ends, we shall inquire afterwards; they are de-
clared, Ephes. ii. 10.
2. It is likewise granted that believers, from the performance
of this obedience, or these works of righteousness, are denomi-
nated rigliteous in the Scripture, and are personally atid inter-
nally righteous, Luke i. 6. John iii. 7. But yet this denomina-
tion is no where given to them, with respect to grace habitually
inherent, but to the effects of it in duties of obedience, as in
the places mentioned. " They were both righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the
Lord blameless." The latter words give the reason of the
former, or their being esteemed righteous before God. And
" he that doth righteousness is righteous;" the denomination
is from doing. And Bellarmine endeavouring to prove that it
is habitual, not actual righteousness, which is as he speaks, the
THE NATURE AND USE OF IT. 177
formal cause of our justification before God, could not produce
one testimony of Scripture wherein any one is denominated
righteous from habitual righteousness, but is forced to attempt
the proof of it with this absurd argument, namely, that we
"are justified by the sacraments, which do not work in us ac-
tual but habitual righteousness." And this is sufficient to dis-
cover the insufficiency of a pretence for any interest of our own
righteousness from this denomination of being righteous there-
by, seeing it has not respect to that which is the principal part
thereof
3. This inherent righteousness, taking it for that which is
habitual and actual, is the same with our sanctification; nei-
ther is there any difference between them, only they are divers
names of the same thing. For our sanctification is the inherent
renovation of our natures, exerting and acting itself in new-
ness of life, or obedience to God in Christ, and works of right-
eousness. But sanctification and justification are in the Scrip-
ture perpetually distinguished, whatever respect of causality
the one of them may have to the other. And those who con-
found them, as the Papists do, do not so much dispute about
the nature of justification, as endeavour to prove that indeed
there is no such thing as justification at all. For that which
would serve most to enforce it, namely, the pardon of sin, they
place in the exclusion and extinction of it, by the infusion of
inherent grace, which does not belong to justification.
4. By this inherent personal righteousness, we may be said
several ways to be justified. As (1) In our own consciences,
in as much as it is an evidence in us and to us, of our partici-
pation of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, and of our accept-
ance with him, which has no small influence upon our peace.
So speaks the Apostle; " our rejoicing is this, the testimony of
our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with
fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our
conversation in the world," 2 Cor. i. 12. who yet disclaims any
confidence therein as to his justification before God. For, saith
he, " although I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby
justified," 1 Cor. iv. 4. (2) Hereby may we be said to be jus-
tified before men; that is, acquitted of evils laid to our charge,
and approved as righteous and unblamable. For the state of
things is so in the world, that the professors of the gospel ever
were and ever will be evil spoken of as evil doers. The rule
given them to acquit themselves, so that at length they may be
acquitted and justified by all that are not absolutely blinded
178 EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS,
and hardened in wickedness, is that of a holy and fruitful
walking, in abounding in good works, 1 Pet. xi. 12; iii. 16.
And so is it with respect to the Church, that we be not judged
dead, barren professors, but such as have been made " par-
takers of the like precious faith" with others. "Show me thy
faith by thy works." James ii. Wherefore (3) this righteous-
ness is pleadable to our justification against all the charges of
Satan, who is the great accuser of the brethren, of all that be-
lieve. Whether he manage his charge privately in our con-
sciences, which is as it were before God, as he charged Job; or
by his instruments in all manner of reproaches and calumnies,
whereof some in this age have had experience in an eminent
manner, this righteousness is pleadable to our justification.
On a supposition of these things, wherein our personal right-
eousness is allowed its proper place and use (as shall after-
wards be more fully declared) I do not understand that there
is an evangelical justification whereby believers are by and on
the account of this personal inherent righteousness justified in
the sight of God; nor does the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ to our absolute justification before him depend there-
on. For,
1. None have this personal righteousness but they are ante-
cedently justified in the sight of God. It is wholly the obe-
dience of faith, proceeding from true and saving faith in God
by Jesus Christ. For as it was said before, works before faith,
are as by general consent excluded from any interest in our
justification, and we have proved that they are neither condi-
tions of it, dispositions to it, nor preparations for it, properly
so called. But every true believer is immediately justified on
his believing. Nor is there any moment of time wherein a
man is a true believer, according as faith is required in the
gospel, and yet not justified. For as he is thereby united to
Christ, which is the foundation of our justification by him, so
the whole Scripture testifies, that he that believes is justified; or
that there is an infallible connexion in the ordination of God
between true faith and justification. Wherefore this personal
righteousness cannot be the condition of our justification before
God, seeing it is consequential thereon. What may be pleaded
in exception hereto from the supposition of a second justifica-
tion, or differing causes of the beginning and continuation of
justification, has been already disproved.
2. Justification before God is a freedom and absolution from
a charge before God, at least it is contained therein. And the
THE NATURE AND USE OF IT. 179
instrument of this charge must either be the law or the gospel.
But neither the law nor the gospel, before God, or in the sight
of God, charges true believers with unbelief, hypocrisy or the
like. For '• who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's
elect," who are once justified before him ? Such a charge may
be laid against them by Satan, by the Church sometimes on
mistake, by the world, as it was in the case of Job, against
which this righteousness is pleadable. Bat what is charged
immediately before God, is charged by God himself, either by
the law or the gospel; and the judgment of God is according
to truth. If this charge be by the law, by the law we must be
justified. But the plea of sincere obedience will not justify us
by the law. That admits of nothing in satisfaction to its de-
mands, but that which is complete and perfect. And where the
gospel lays any thing to the charge of any persons before God,
there can be no justification before God, unless we shall allow
the gospel to be the instrument of a false charge. For what
should justify him whom the gospel condemns? And if it be
a justification by the gospel from the charge of the law, it ren-
ders the death of Christ of no etfect. And a justification with-
out a charge, is not to be supposed.
3. Such a justification as that pretended, is altogether need-
less and useless. This may easily be evinced from what the
Scripture asserts respecting our justification in the sight of God
by faith in the blood of Christ. But this has been spoken to
before on another occasion. Let that be considered, and it will
quickly appear, that there is no place nor use for this new jus-
tification upon our personal righteousness, whether it be sup-
posed antecedent and subordinate thereto, or consequential and
perfective thereof.
4. This pretended evangelical justification has not the nature
of any justification that is mentioned in the Scripture; that is,
neither that by the law, nor that provided in the gospel. Jus-
tification by the law is this: ''The man that doth the works of
it shall live in them." This it does not pretend to. And as to
evangelical justification, it is every way contrary to it. For
therein the charge against the person to be justified, is true;
namely, that he has sinned, and has come short of the glory of
God. In this it is false, namely, that a believer is an unbe-
liever; a sincere person, a hypocrite; one fruitful in good works,
altogether barren. And this false charge is supposed to be ex-
hibited in the name of God, and before him. Our acquittal in
true evangelical justification is by absolution or pardon of sin;
180 EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS,
here by a vindication ofonr own righteon5;ness. There the plea
of the person to be justified is, "guilty,'' all the world is be-
come guilty before God; but here the plea of the person on his
trial is, "not guilty," whereon the proofs and evidences of inno-
cency and righteousness ensue; but this is a plea which the law
will not admit, and which the gospel disclaims.
5. If we are justified before God on our own personal right-
eousness, and pronounced righteous by him on account thereof,
then God enters into judgment with us on something in our-
selves and acquits us thereon. For justification is a juridical
act in and of that judgment of God which is according to truth.
But that God should enter into judgment with us, and justify
us with respect to what he judges on, or our personal right-
eousness, the Psalmist does not believe, Psal. cxxx. 2, 3; cxliii.
2; nor did the Publican, Luke xviii.
6. This persona] righteousness of ours cannot be said to be a
subordinate righteousness, and subservient to our justification
by faith in the blood of Christ, For therein God justifies the
ungodly, and imputes righteousness to him that worketh not.
And besides it is expressly excluded from any consideration in
our justification, Ephes. ii. 7, 8,
7. This personal inherent righteousness wherewith we are
said to be justified with this evangelical justification, is our
own righteousness. Personal righteousness and our own right-
eousness, are expressions equivalent. But our own righteous-
ness is not the material cause of any justification before God.
For (1) It is unmeet so to be, Isa. liv. 6. (2) It is directly oppos-
ed to that righteousness whereby we are justified, as inconsis-
tent with it to that end, Phil. iii. 9; Rom. x. 3, 4.
It will be said that our own righteousness is the righteous-
ness of the law; but this personal righteousness is evangelical.
But (1) It will be hard to prove, that our personal righteous-
ness is any other but our own righteousness; and our own
righteousness is expressly rejected from any interest in our jus-
tification, in the places quoted. (2) That righteousness which
is evangelical in respect of its efficient cause, its motives and
some especial ends, is legal in respect of the formal reason of
it, and our obligation to it. For there is no instance of duly be-
longing to it, but in general we are obliged to its performance
by virtue of the first commandment, to take the Lord for our
God. Acknowledging therein his essential verily and sovereign
authority, we are obliged to believe all that he shall reveal, and
to obey in all that he shall command. (3) The good works re-
THE NATURE AND USE OF IT.
181
jected from any interest in our justification, are those whereto
we are "created in Christ Jesus," Ephes. ii. 8, 9, the "works
of righteousness which we have done," Tit. iii, 5, wherein the
Gentiles are concerned, who never sought for righteousness by
the works of the law, Rom. ix. 30. But it will yet be said that
these things are evident in themselves. God requires an evan-
gelical righteousness in all that believe. This Christ is not, nor
is it the righteousness of Christ. He may be said to be our legal
righteousness, but our evangelical righteousness he is not. And
so far as we are righteous with any righteousness, so far we
are justified by it. For according to this evangelical righteous-
ness, we must be tried; if we have it we shall be acquitted,
and if we have it not, we shall be condemned. There is there-
fore a justification according to it.
I answer. (1) According to some authors or maintainers of
this opinion, I see not but that the Lord Christ is as much our
evangelical righteousness as he is our legal. For our legal
righteousness he is not in their judgment, by a proper imputa-
tion of his righteousness to us, but by the communication of
the fruits of what he did and suffered to us. And so he is our
evangelical righteousness also. For our sanctification is an
effect or fruit of what he did and suffered for us. Eph. v. 25.
26. Tit. ii. 14.
2. None have this evangelical righteousness, but those who
are in order of nature at least, justified before they actually have
it. For it is that which is required of all that believe, and are
justified thereon. And we need not much inquire how a man
is justified, after he is justified.
3. God has not appointed this personal righteousness in
order to our justification before him in this life, though he has
appointed it, to evidence our justification before others, and
even in his sight, as shall be declared. He accepts of it, ap-
proves of it, upon the account of the free justification of the
person, in and by whom it is wrought. So he had "respect
unto Abel and his offering." But we are not acquitted by it
from any real charge in the sight of God, nor do we receive
remission of sins on the account of it. And those who place
the whole of justification in the remission of sins, making this
personal righteousness the condition of it, as the Socinians do,
leave not any place for the righteousness of Christ in our jus-
tification.
4. If we are in any sense justified hereby in the sight of
God, we have whereof to boast before him. We may not have
16
182 EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS,
SO absolutely and with respect to merit, yet we have so com-
paratively, and in respect of others, who cannot make the same
plea for their justification. But all boasting is excluded. And
it will not relieve to say, that this personal righteousness, is of
the free grace and gift of God to some, and not to others ; for
we must plead it as our duty, and not as God's grace.
5. Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God
through faith in the blood of Christ, without respect to any
works, obedience, or righteousness of his own; we freely
grant ; ( 1 ) That God indispensably requires personal obedience
of him, which may be called his evangelical righteousness;
(2) That God approves of, and accepts in Christ this righteous-
ness so performed; (3) That hereby that faith whereby we
are justified is evidenced, proved, manifested, in the sight of
God and men. (4) That this righteousness is pleadable to an
acquittal against any charge from Satan, the world, or our
own consciences; (5) That upon it, we shall be declared right-
eous at the last day, and without it none shall so be. And if
any shall think meet from hence to conclude upon an evangeli-
cal justification, or call God's acceptance of our righteousness
by that name, I shall by no means contend with them. And
wherever this inquiry is made, not how a sinner guilty of
death and obnoxious to the curse, shall be pardoned, acquitted
and justified, which is by the righteousness of Christ alone im-
puted to him ; but how a man that professes evangelical faith, or
faith in Christ, shall be tried, judged, and whereon as such he
shall be justified, we grant that it is and must be by his own
personal sincere obedience.
And these things are spoken, not with a design to contend
with any, or to oppose the opinions of any ; but only to remove
from the principal question in hand, those things which do not
belong to it.
A very few words will also free our inquiry from any con-
cernment, in that which is called sentential justification, at the
day of judgment. For of what nature soever it be, the person
concerning whom that sentence is pronounced, was(l) actually
and completely justified before God in this world; (2) made
partaker of all the benefits of that jnstification, even to a blessed
resurrection in glory; "it is raised in glory;" 1 Cor. xv., (3)
The souls of the most will long before have enjoyed a blessed
rest with God, absolutely discharged and acquitted from all
their labours, and all their sins; there remains nothing but an
actual admission of the whole person into eternal glory.
THE NATURE AND USE OF IT. 183
Wherefore this judgment can be no more but declaratory to the
glory of God, and the everlasting refreshment of them that have
believed. And without reducing it to a new justification, as it
is no where called in the Scripture ; the ends of that solemn
judgment, in the manifestation of the wisdom and righteousness
of God, in appointing the way of salvation by Christ, as well
as in giving of the law ; the public conviction of them by whom
the law has been transgressed and the gospel despised; the
vindication of the righteousness, power and wisdom of God in
the rule of the world by his providence, wherein for the most
part, his paths to all in this life, " are in the deep, and his foot-
steps are not known ;" the glory and honour of Jesus Christ,
triumphing over all his enemies, then fully made " his foot-
stool;" and the glorious exaltation of grace in all that believe,
with sundry other things of a like tendency to the ultimate
manifestation of divine glory in the creation and guidance of
all things, are sufficiently manifest.
And hence it appears, how little force there is in that argu-
ment which some pretend to be of so great weight in this cause.
'As every one (they say) shall be judged of God at the last
day, in the same way and manner, or on the same grounds is
he justified of God in this life. But by works and not by faith
alone, every one shall be judged at the last day ; wherefore by-
works and not by faith alone every one is justified before God
in this life.' For,
1. It is no where said that we shall be judged at the last day,
ex operihus, by our works; but, only that God will render unto
men secundum opera, according to their works. But God does
not justify any in this life secundum opera; being justified
" freely by his grace, and, not according to the works of right-
eousness which we have done." And we are every where
said to be justified in this life, ex fide, per fidem, by faith; but
no vi\\eve propter fidem, for our faith ; or that God justifies us
secundum fidem, according to our faith. And we are not to
depart from the expressions of the Scripture where such a dif-
ference is constantly observed.
2. It is somewhat strange that a man should be judged at
the last day, and justified in this life, just in the same way and
manner, that is with respect to faith and works, when the
Scripture constantly ascribes our justification before God to
faith without works; and the judgment at the last day is said
to be according to works, without any mention of faith.
3. If justification and eternal judgment proceed absolutely
J 84 EVANGELICAL PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.
on the same grounds, reasons, and causes, then if men had not
done what they shall be condemned for doing at the last day,
they should have been justified in this life. But many shall be
condemned only for sins against the light of nature, Rom. ii.
12, as never having the written law or gospel made known to
them. Wherefore to such persons, to abstain from sins against
the light of nature, would be sutficient to their justification,
without any knowledge of Christ or the gospel.
4. This proposition, that God pardons men their sins, gives
them the adoption of children with a right to the heavenly in-
heritance according to their works, is not only foreign to the
gospel, but contradictory to it, and destructive of it, as con-
trary to all express testimonies of the Scripture both in the Old
Testament and the New, where these things are spoken of.
But that God judges all men, and retiders to all men at the last
judgment according to their works, is true and affirmed in the
Scripture.
5. In our justification in this life by faith, Christ is considered
as our propitiation and advocate, as he who has made atone-
ment for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness. But
at the last day, and in the last judgment, he is considered only
as the judge.
6. The end of God in our justification is the glory of his
grace; Eph. i. 6. But the end of God in the last judgment is
the glory of his remunerative righteousness, 2 Tim. iv. 8.
7. The representation that is made of the final judgment,
Matth. vii. and xxv. is only of the visible church. And therein
the plea of faith as to the profession of it is common to all, and
is equally made by all. Upon that plea of faith, it is put to
the trial whether it were sincere true faith or no, or only that
which was dead and barren. And this trial is made solely by
the fruits and effects of it, and otherwise in the public declara-
tion of things to all, it cannot be made. Otherwise the faith
whereby we are justified comes not into judgment at the last
day. See John v. 24, whh Mark xvi. 16.
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT. 185
CHAPTER VII.
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT; WITH THE IMPUTATION OF THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IN PARTICULAR.
The first express record of the justification of any sinner is of
Abraham. Others were justified before him from thei)eginning,
and there is that affirmed of them, which sufficiently evidences
them so to have been. But this prerogative was reserved for
the father of tlie faithful, that his justification and the express
way and manner of it, should be first entered on the sacred
record. So it is Gen. xv. 6. " He believed in the Lord, and it
was counted unto him for righteousness." naa'n'' It wasMccouni-
ed to him, or imputed to him for righteousness. E%oyi,(i6rj — it
was counted, reckoned, imputed. "And it was not written for
his sake alone, that it was imputed unto him, but for us also
unto whom it shall be imputed if we believe," Rora. iv. 23, 24.
Wherefore the first express declaration of the nature of justifi-
cation in the Scripture, affirms it to be by imputation ; the im-
putation of somewhat to righteousness; and this done in that
place and instance, which is recorded on purpose, as the pre-
cedent and example of all those that shall be justified. As he
was justified so are we, and no otherwise.
Under the New Testament there was a necessity of a more
full and clear declaration of the doctrine of it. For it is among
the first and principal parts of that heavenly mystery of truth
which was to be "brought to light by the gospel." And be-
sides there was from the first a strong and dangerous opposi-
tion made to it. For this matter of justification, the doctrine of
it, and what necessarily belongs thereto, was that whereon the
Jewish church broke off from God, refused Christ and the gos-
pel, perishing in their sins; as is expressly declared, Rom. ix.
31; X. 3,4. And in like manner a dislike of it, an opposition
to it, ever was and ever will be a principle and cause of the
apostasy of any professing church, from Christ and the gospel,
that falls under the power and deceit of them; as it fell out
afterwards in the churches of the Galatians. But in this state
the doctrine of justification was fully declared, stated, and
vindicated by the apostle Paul in a peculiar manner. And he
does it especially by affirming and proving that we have the
righteousness whereby and wherewith we are justified, by im-
16*
186 IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
putation; or that our justification consists in the non-imputa-
tion of sin, and the imputation of righteousness.
But yet, although the first recorded instance of justification,
and which was so recorded, that it might be an example, and
represent the justification of all that should be justified to the
end of the world, is expressed by imputation, and rigiiteous-
ness imputed, and the doctrine of it in that great case, wherein
the eternal welfare of the church of the Jews, or their ruin, was
concerned, is so expressed by the Apostle; yet is it so fallen
out in our days that nothing in religion is more maligned, more
reproached, more despised, than the imputation of righteous-
ness to us, or an imputed righteousness. A putative righteous-
ness, the shadow of a dream, a fancy, a mummery, an imagi-
na.tion, say some among us. An opinion, /cerfa, execranda,
perniciosa, detestanda, saith Socinus. And opposition arises
to it every day from great variety of principles. For those by
whom it is opposed and rejected can by no means agree what
to set up in the place of it.
However, the weight and importance of this doctrine is on
all hands acknowledged, whether it be true or false. It is not
a dispute about notions, terms, and speculations, wherein Chris-
tian practice ishttle or not at all concerned, (of which nature
many are needlessly contended about) but such as has an imme-
diate influence upon our whole present duty, with our eternal
welfare or ruin. Those by whom this imputation of righteous-
ness is rejected, affirm that the faiih and doctrine of it, over-
throw the necessity of gospel obedience, of personal righteous-
ne^ss, and good works, bringing in antinomianism and libertin-
ism in.ttl|. Hereon it must of necessity be destructive of sal-
vation, in those who believe it, and conform their practice
thereto. And those on the other hand by whom it is believed,
seeing they judge it impossible that any man should be justi-
fied before God any other way, but by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, accordingly judge, that without it none
can be saved. Hence a learned man of late concludes his
discourse concerning it; hactenus de imputotione Justitiae
Christi, sine qua nemo iinquam aut salvatus est, aut salvari
queat. .Tustificat. Paulin. cap. 8. "Thus far of the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, without which no man was ever
saved, or can be.'' They do not think nor judge, that all those
are excluded from salvation, who cannot apprehend, or who
deny the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, as by them declared. But they judge that they are so.
IMPUTATION. AND THE NATURE OF IT.
187
to whom that righteousness is not really irnjnited; nor can they
do otherwise, whilst they make it the foundation of all their
own acceptance wiih God and eternal salvation. These things
greatly diifer. To believe the doctrine of it, or not to believe
it, as thus or thus explained, is one thing: and to enjoy the
thing, or not enjoy it, is another. I no way doubt, but that
many men receive more grace from God, than they understand
or will own; and have a greater efficacy of it in them, than
they will believe. /Men may be really saved, by that grace
which doctrinally they deny; and they may be justified by the
imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny
to be imputed./ For the faith of it, is included in that general
assent which tney give to the truth of the gospel, and such an
adherence to Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of
the way whereby they are saved by him, shall not defraud
them of a real interest (herein. And for my part, I must say,
that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about
justification (some whereof are full of off"ence and scandal) I
do not believe but that the authors of them, (if they be not
Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction
of Christ) do really trust to the mediation of Christ for the
pardon of their sins, and acceptance with God, and not to their
own works or obedience. Nor will I believe the contrary,
until they expressly declare it. Of the oV)jection on the other
hand, concerning the danger of the doctrine of the imputation
of the righteousness of Clirist, in reference to the necessity of
holiness, and works of righteousness, we must treat afterwards.
The judgment of the reformed churches herein is known to
all, and must be confessed, unless we intend by vain cavils to
increase and perpetuate contentions. Especially the Church of
England is in her doctrine express as to the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, both active and passive, as it is usually
distinguished. This has been of late so fully manifested out of
her authentic writings, that is, the " Articles of Religion," and
"Books of Homilies," and other writings publicly authorized,
that it is altogether needless to give any further demonstration
of it. Those who pretend themselves to be otiierwise minded,
are such as I will not contend with. For to what purpose is it
to dispute with men who will deny the sun to shine, when they
cannot bear the heat of its beams. Wherefore in what I have
to offer on this subject, I shall not in the least depart from the
ancient doctrine of the Church of England; yea I have no de-
sign but to declare and vindicate it, as God shall enable.
1
188 IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
There are indeed sundry differences atnong persons learned,
sober, and orthodox (if that term displease not) in the way and
manner of the explication of the doctrine of justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who yet all of them
agree in the substance of it, in all those things wherein the
grace of God, the honour of Christ, and the peace of the souls
of men are principally concerned. As far as it is possible for
me, I shall avoid the concerning myself at present, in these dif-
ferences. For to what purpose is it to contend about them,
whilst the substance of the doctrine itself is openly opposed
and rejected? why should we debate about the order and beau-
tifying of the rooms in a house, whilst fire is set to the whole.-*
when that is well quenched, we may return to the considera-
tion of the best means for the disposal and use of the several
parts of it.
There are two grand parties by whom the doctrine of justi-
fication by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is op-
posed, namely, the Papists and the Socinians. But they pro-
ceed on ditlerent principles, and to different ends. The design of
the one is to exalt their own merits, of the other to destroy the
merit of Christ. But besides these who trade in company, we
have many interlopers, who coming in on their hand, make
bold to borrow from both, as they see occasion. We shall have
to do with them all in our progress; not with the persons of
any, nor the way and maimer of their expressing themselves,
but the opinions of all of them so far as they are opposite to
the truth. For it is that which wise men despise and good men
bewail, to see persons pretending to religion and piety, to cavil
at expressions, to contend about words, to endeavour the fas-
tening of opinions on men which they own not, and thereon
mutually to revile one another, publishing all to the world, as
some great achievement or victory. This is not the way to
teach the truths of the gospel, nor to promote the edification of
the church. But in general, the importance of the cause to be
pleaded, the greatness of the opposition that is made to the
truth, and the high concernment of the souls of believers, to
be rightly instructed in it, call for a renewed declaration and
vindication of it. And what I shall attempt to this purpose, I
do it under (his persuasion, that the life and continuance of any
church on the one hand, and its apostasy or ruin on the other,
do depend in an eminent manner on the preservation or rejec-
tion of the truth in this article of religion; and I shall add, as
it has been professed, received, and believed in the Church of
England in former days.
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT. 189
The first thing we are to consider is the meaning of these
words to impute and imputation. For from a mere plain de-
claration hereof, it will appear that sundry things charged on
a supposition of the imputation we plead for, are vain and
groundless, or the charge itself is so.
2Dn the word first used to this purpose, signifies to think, to
esteem, Xojudi^e, or to refer a thing or matter to any; to i^n-
pute, or to be imputed iox good or evil: — see Levit. vii. 18;
xvii. 4; and Psalm cvi. 31; "and it was counted, [reckoned,
imputed] unto him for righteousness:" — to judge or esteem
this or that, good or evil, to belong to him, to be his. The Lxx.
express it by ^oyt^w and 7Loyifo;uat; as do the writers of the New
Testament also. And these are rendered by reputare, impu-
tare, acceptum ferre, tribuere, assignare, ascribere. But there
is a diflierent signification among these words; in particular, to
be "reputed righteous," and to have "righteousness imputed,"
diff'er, as cause and efl'ect. For, that any may be reputed
righteous, that is, be judged or esteemed so to be, there must
be a real foundation of that reputation, or it is a mistake, and
not a right judgment; as a man may be reputed to be wise,
who is a fool, or reputed to be rich, who is a beggar. Where-
fore he that is reputed righteous, must either have a righteous-
ness of his own, or another antecedently imputed to him, as
the foundation of that reputation. Wherefore to impute right-
eousness to one that hath none of his own, is not to repute him
to be righteous, who is indeed unrighteous, but it is to com-
municate a righteousness to him, that he may rightly and justly
be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous.
Imputare is a word that the Latin tongue owns in the sense
wherein it is used by divines. Optime de 2Josteris meruisti,
ad quos pervenerit incorrupta rerum fides, magno authori
suo imputata. "You have deserved well of posterity, to whom
[by the publication of your father's works] you will have fur-
nished an authentic history of past events, accredited to its greaf
author." Senec. ad Mart. And Pliny, lib. IS, cap. i., in his
apology for the earth, our common parent, nostris earn crimi-
nibus urgemus, culpanique nostram illi imputamus. " We
load her with our crimes, and impute our own faults to her."
In their sense, to impute any thing to another, is, if it be
evil, to charge it on him, to burden him with it; so saith Pliny,
"we impute our own faults to the earth," or charge them upon
it. If it be good, it is to ascribe it to him as his own, whether
originally it were so or no; magno authori imputata. Vas-
190 IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
quez, in Thorn. 22. Tom. 2. Disp. 132, attempts the sense of the
word, but confounds it with reputare. Impiitare aut repu-
tare quidquam alinii, est idem atque inter ea quse sunt ip-
sius, et ad euni pertinent, connumerare et recensere. " To im-
pute a thing to a person, is to reckon it among those things
which are his and belong to him." This is reputare properly;
2W/?w^are includes an act antecedent to this accounting ores-
teeming a thing to belong to any person.
But whereas that may be imputed to us which is really our
own antecedently to that imputation, the word must needs
have a double sense, as it has in the instances given out of
Latin authors now mentioned. And,
1. To impute to us that which was really ours, antecedently
to that imputation, includes two things in it. (1) An acknow-
ledgment or judgment, that the thing so imputed is really and
truly ours, or in us. He that imputes wisdom or learning to
any man, does in the first place acknowledge him to be wise
or learned. (2) A dealing with them according to it, whether
it be good or evil. So when upon trial a man is acquitted be-
cause he is found righteous; first he is judged and esteemed
righteous, and then dealt with as a righteous person; his right-
eousness is imputed to him. See this exemplified. Gen. xxx. 33.
2, To impute to us that which is not our own antecedently
to that imputation, includes also in it two things. (1) A grant
or donation of the thing itself to us to be ours, on some just
ground and foundation. For a thing must be made ours, be-
fore we can justly be dealt with according to what is required
on the account of it. (2) A will of dealing with us, or an ac-
tual dealing with us according to that which is so made ours.
For in this matter whereof we treat, the most holy and right-
eous God does not justify any, that is, absolve them from sin,
pronounce them righteous, and thereon grant them right and
title to eternal life, but upon the interveniency of a true and
complete righteousness, truly and completely made the right-
eousness of them that are to be justified, in order of nature
antecedently to their justification. But these things will be
yet made more clear by instances, and it is necessary they
should be so.
1. There is an imputation to us of that which is really our
own, inherent in us, performed by us, antecedently to that im-
putation, and this whether it be evil or good. The rule and
nature hereof is given and expressed, Ezek. xviii. 20. " The
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, the wicked-
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OP IT. 191
ness of the wicked shall be upon him." Instances we have of
both sorts. (1) In the imputation of sin, when the person
guilty of it, is so judged and reckoned a sinner, as to be dealt
with accordingly. This imputation Shimei deprecated, 2 Sam.
xix. 19, He said to the king, " Let not my Lord impute iniquity
unto me," arm (the word used in the expression of the im-
putation of righteousness. Gen. xv. 6.) "neither do thou re-
member what thy servant did perversely; for thy servant doth
know that I have sinned.'' He was guilty, and acknowledged
his guilt, but deprecates the imputation of it, in such a sen-
tence concerning him, as his sin deserved. So Stephen depre-
cated the imputation of sin to them that stoned him, whereof
they were really guilty, Acts vii. 60. " Lay not this sin to their
charge;" impute it not to them. As on the other side Zecha-
riah the son of Jehoiada, Avho died in the same cause, and the
same kind of death with Stephen, prayed that the sin of those
who slew him might be charged on them, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22.
Wherefore to impute sin, is to lay ii to the charge of any, and
to deal with them according to its desert.
To impute that which is good to any, is to judge and acknow-
ledge it so to be theirs, and thereon to deal with them in whom
it is, according to its respect to the law of God. " The right-
eousness of the righteous shall be upon him." So Jacob pro-
vided that his righteousness should answer for him. Gen. xxx.
33. And we have an instance of it in God's dealing with
men, Psal. cvi. 3L "Then stood up Phineas and executed
judgment, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."
Notwithstanding it seemed that he had not sufficient warrant
for what he did, yet God that knew his heart, and what guid-
ance of his own Spirit he was under, approved his act as right-
eous, and gave him a reward testifying that approbation.
Concerning this imputation it must be observed, that what-
ever is our own antecedently thereto, which is an act of God
thereon, can never be imputed to us for any thing more or less
than what it is really in itself For this imputation consists of
two parts, or two things concur thereto. (1) A judgment of the
thing to be ours, to be in us, or to belong to us. (2) A will of
deahng with us, or an actual dealing with us, according to it.
Wherefore in the imputation of any thing to us, which is ours,
God esteems it not to be other than it is. He does not esteem
that to be a perfect righteousness which is imperfect; so to do
might argue either a mistake of the thing judged on, or per-
verseness in the judgment itself upon it. Wherefore if, as some
192 IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
say, our own faith and obedience are imputed to us for right-
eousness, seeing they are imperfect, they must be imputed to us
for an imperfect righteousness, and not for that which is perfect.
For that judgment of God which is according to truth, is in this
imputation. And the imputation of an imperfect righteous-
ness to us, esteeming it only as such, will stand us in little stead
in this matter. And the acceptilation which some plead, (tra-
ducing a fiction in human laws, to interpret the mystery of the
gospel) not only overthrows all imputation, but the satisfaction
and merit of Christ also. And it must be observed, that this
imputation is a mere act of justice, without any mixture of
grace, as the Apostle declares, Rom. xi. 6. For it consists of
these two parts, (1) An acknowledging and judging that to be
in us which is truly so. (2) A will of dealing with us accord-
ing to it; both which are acts of justice.
The imputation to us of that which is not our own antece-
dently to that imputation, at least not in the same manner as it
is afterwards, is various also, as to the grounds and causes that
it proceeds upon. Only it must be observed, that no imputa-
tion of this kind, is to account them, to whom any thing is im-
puted, to have done the things themselves which are imputed to
them. That were not to impute but to err in judgment, and
indeed utterly to overthrow tlie whole nature of gracious im-
putation. But it is to make that to be ours by imputation,
which was not ours before, to all ends and purposes whereto
it would have served, if it had been our own, without any
such imputation.
It is therefore a manifest mistake of their own which some
make the ground of a charge on the doctrine of imputation.
For they say, if our sins were imputed to Christ, then must he
be esteemed to have done what we have done amiss, and so
be the greatest sinner that ever was; and on the other side, if
his righteousness be imputed to us, then are we esteemed to
have done what he did, and so to stand in no need of the par-
don of sin. But this is contrary to the natiu'e of imputation,
which proceeds on no such judgment, but on the contrary, that
we ourselves have done nothing of what is imputed to us; nor
Christ any thing of what was imputed to him.
To declare more distinctly the nature of this imputation, I
shall consider the several kinds of it, or rather the several
grounds whence it proceeds. For this imputation to us, of what
is not our own antecedent to that imputation, may be either,
(1) Exjustitia,ov (2) Exvoluntaria spo?isiojie, or (3) Ex in-
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT. 193
jiiria, or (4) Ex gratia; all which shall be exemplified. I do
not place them thus distinctly, as if they might not some of
them concur in the same imputation, which I shall manifest
that they do. But I shall refer the several kinds of imputation,
to that which is the next cause of every one.
1. Things that are not our own origmally, personally, inhe-
rently, may yet be imputed to us ex Jiislitia, by the rule of
righteousness. And this may be done upon a double relation
10 those whose they are; (1) federal, (2) natural. (1) Things
done by one may be imputed to olhers, propter relationem Jbsd-
eraiem, hecause of a covenant relation between them. So the
sin of Adam was, and is imputed to all his posterity, as we
shall afterwards more fully declare. And the ground hereof is,
that we stood all in the same covenant with him, who was our
head and representative therein. The corruption and deprava-
tion of nature which we derive from Adam is imputed to us,
with the first kind of imputation, namely, of that which is ours
antecedently to that imputation. But his actual sin is imputed
to us, as that which becomes ours by that imputation, which
before it was not. Hence says Bellarmine himself; jjeccatiim
^Uami ita posteris omnibus irnputatur, ac si o?nnes idem
peccatuni patravissent. DeAmiss. Grat.lib. 4. cap 10. "The
sin of Adam is so imputed to all his posterity, as if they had all
committed the same sin." And he gives us herein the true
nature of imputation, which he fiercely disputes against in his
books of justification. For the imputation of that sin to us, as
if we had committed it, which he acknowledges, includes both
a transcription of that sin to us, and a dealing with us, as if we
had committed it; which is the doctrine of the Apostle, Rom. 5.
2. There is an imputation of sin to olhers, ex justitia prop-
ter relationem naturalem, on account of a natural relation
between them, and those who had actually contracted the guilt
of it. But this is so only with respect to some outward tempo-
rary effects of it. So God speaks concerning the children of
the rebellious Israelites in the wilderness. " Your children shall
wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whore-
doms," Numb. xiv. 33. Your sin shall be so far imputed to
your children, because of their relation to you, and your inter-
est in them, as that they shall suffer for them in an afflictive
condition in the wilderness. And this was just, because of the
relation between them; as the same procedure of divine justice
is frequently declared in other places of the Scripture. So where
there is a due foundation of it, imputation is an act of justice,
17
194 IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
3. Imputation may justly ensue, ex voluntaria sponsione;
when one freely and willingly undertakes to answer for another.
An illustrious instance hereof we have in that passage of the
Apostle to Philemon, in the behalf of Onesimus; ver. 18. "If
he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, tovto ^loi tXKo'^n,
Impute it to me," put it on my account. He supposes that
Philemon might have a double action against Onesimus; (1)
Injuriarum^ of wrongs; it Se tu '^Stxt^ss a, if he has dealt un-
justly with thee or by thee, if he has so wronged thee as to
render himself obnoxious to punishment; (2) Damni, or of
loss; -^ o^iLXii/iihe owes thee aught, be a debtor to thee, which
made him liable to payment or restitution. In this state the
Apostle interposes himself by a voluntary sponsion, to under-
take for Onesimus. " I Paul have written it with my own hand,
lyfe. arcottaa, I will auswer for the whole." And this he did by
the transcription of both the debts of Onesimus to himself; for
the crime was of that nature as might It taken away by com-
purgation, being not capital. And the imputation of them to
him, was made just, by his voluntary undertaking of them.
Account me, says he, the person that has done these things;
and I will make satisfaction, so that nothing be charged on
Onesimus. So Judah voluntarily undertook to Jacob, for the
safety of Benjamin, and obliged himself to perpetual guilt in
case of failure; Gen. xliii. 9. "I will be surety for him, of my
hands shalt thou require him, if I bring him not to thee, and
set him before thee, TiNam I will sin, or be a sinner before thee
always;" be guilty, and as we say, bear the blame. So he ex-
presses himself again to Joseph, Gen. xliv. 32. It seems this
is the nature and office of a surety; what he undertakes for, is
justly to be required at his hand, as if he had been originally
and personally concerned in it. And this voluntary sponsion
was one ground of the imputation of our sin to Christ. He
took on him the person of the whole church that had sinned, to
answer for what they had done against God and the law.
Hence that imputation vjd^s fundament aliter ex coinpacto, ex
voluntaria sponsione, it had its foundation in his voluntary
undertaking. But on supposition hereof; it was actually ex
justitia, it being righteous that he should answer for, and make
good what he had so undertaken; the glory of God's righteous-
ness and holiness being greatly concerned herein.
4. There is an imputation, ex injuria; when that is laid to
the charge of any, whereof lie is not guilty: so Bathsheba says
to David; " it shall come to pass when my Lord the King
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OP IT. 195
shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall
be a^'Non sinners;" 1 Kings i. 21, shall be dealt with as offenders,
as guilty persons, have sin imputed to us, on one pretence or
other to our destructipn. We shall be sinners; be esteemed so,
and be dealt withal 'accordingly. And we may see that in the
phrase of the Scripture, the denomination of sinners follows the
imputation, as well as the inhesion of sin; which will give light
to that place of the Apostle, "he was made sin for us," 2 Cor.
V. 21. This kind of imputation has no place in the judgment of
God. It is far from him, that the righteous should be as the
wicked.
5, There is an imputation, ex niera gratia, of mere grace
and favour. And this is, when that which antecedently to this
imputation was no way ours, not inherent in us, not performed
by us, which we had no right or title to, is granted to us, made
ours, so as that we are judged of, and dealt with according to
it. This is that imputation in both branches of it, negative in
the non-imputation of sin, and positive in the imputation of
righteousness, which the Apostle so vehemently pleads for, and
so frequently asserts, Rom. iv. For he both affirms the thing
itself, and declares that it is of mere grace, without respect to any
thing within ourselves. And if this kind of imputation cannot
be fully exemplified in any other instance, but this alone,
whereof we treat, it is because the foundation of it in the me-
diation of Christ is singular, and that which there is nothing to
parallel in any other case among men.
From what has been discoursed concerning the nature and
grounds of imputation, sundry things are made evident, which
contribute much light to the truth which we plead for, at least
to the right understanding and stating of the matter under
debate. As
1. The difference is plain between the imputation of any
works of our own to us, and the imputation of the right-
eousness of faith without works. For the imputation of works
to us, be they what they will, be it faith itself as a work of
obedience in us, is the imputation of that which was ours, be-
fore such imputation. But the imputation of the righteousness
of faith, or the righteousness of God which is by faith, is the
imputation of that which is made ours by virtue of that impu-
tation. And these two imputations differ in their whole kind.
The one is a judging of that to be in us, which indeed is so,
and is ours, before that judgment be passed concerning it; the
other is a communication of that to us, which before was
196
IMPUTATIO>'^, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
not ours. And no man can make sense of the Apostle's dis-
course, that is, he cannot understand any thing of it, if he ac-
knowledge not that the righteousness he treats of is made ours
by imputation, and was not ours, antecedently thereto.
2. The imputation of works, of what so'rt soever they be, of
faith itself as a work, and all the obedience of faith, is ex jus-
titia, and not ex gratia; of right and not of grace. However
the bestowing of faith on us, and the working of obedience in
us, may be of grace, yet the imputation of them to us, as
in us, and as ours, is an act of justice. For this imputation as
was shown, is nothing but a judgment that such and such
things are in us, or are ours, which truly and really are so,
with a treating of us according to them. This is an act of
justice, as it appears in the description given of that imputa-
tion. But the imputation of righteousness mentioned by the
Apostle is as to us ex mera gratia, of mere grace, as he folly
declares, Scopyav tvi ;toptT't aviov. And moreover he declares,
that these two sorts of imputation are inconsistent and not ca-
pable of any composition, so that any thing should be partly
of the one, and partly of the other, Rom. xi. 6. "If by grace,
then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace;
but if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work
is no more work." For instance, if faith itself as a work of
ours be imputed to us, it being ours antecedently to that impu-
tation, it is but an acknowledgment of it to be in us and ours,
with an ascription of it to us, for what it is. For the ascrip-
tion of any thing to us for what it is not, is not imputation but
mistake. But this is an imputation ex jiistitiu, of works ;
and so that which is of mere grace, can have no place, by the
Apostle's rule. So the imputation to us of what is in us, is
exclusive of grace, in the Apostle's sense. And on the other
hand, if the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, it must
be ex mera gratia; of mere grace; for that is imputed to us,
which was not ours, antecedently to that imputation, and so
is communicated to us thereby. And here is no place for
works, nor for any pretence of them. In the one way the foim-
dation of imputation is in ourselves, in the other it is in another,
which are irreconcilable.
3. Herein both these kinds of imputation agree. Namely^
in that whatever is imputed to us, it is imputed for what it is,
and not for what it is not. If it be a perfect righteousness that
is imputed to us, so it is esteemed and judged to be, and ac-
cordingly are we to be dealt with, even as those who have a
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT. 197
perfect righteousness. And if that which is imputed as right-
eousness to us be imperfect, or imperfectly so, then as such
must it be judged when it is imputed; and we must be dealt
with as those which have such an imperfect righteousness, and
no otherwise. And therefore whereas our inherent righteous-
ness is imperfect, (they are to be pitied or despised, not to be
contended with, that are otherwise minded) if that be imputed
to us, we cannot be accepted on the account thereof as perfectly
righteous, without an error in judgment.
4. Hence the true nature of that imputation which we plead
for (which so many cannot or will not understand) is manifest,
and that both negatively and positively. For (1) negatively;
(1) It is not a judging or esteeming of them to be righteous
who truly and really are not so. Such a judgment is not re-
ducible to any of the grounds of imputation before mentioned.
It has the nature of that which is ex injuria, or a false charge,
only it difl^rs materially from it. For that respects evil, this
that which is good. And therefore the clamours of the Papists
and others are mere effects of ignorance or malice, that we
affirm God to esteem them to be righteous, who are wicked,
sinful and polluted. But this falls heavily on them who main-
tain that we are justified before God by our own inherent right-
eousness; for then a man is judged righteous, who indeed is
not so. For he who is not perfectly righteous, cannot be right-
eous in the sight of God unto justification. (2) It is not a
naked pronunciation or declaration of any one to be righteous,
without a just and sutficient foundation for the judgment of
God declared therein. God declares no man to be righteous
but him who is so; the whole question being, how he comes so
to be. (3) It is not the transmission or transfusion of the right-
eousness of another into them that are to be justified, that they
should become perfectly and inherently righteous thereby.
For it is impossible that the righteousness of one should be
transfused into another, to become his subjectively and inhe-
rently. But it is a great mistake on the other hand, to say that
therefore the righteousness of one can in no way be made the
righteousness of another, which is to deny all imputation.
Wherefore (2) positively; This imputation is an act of God
ex mera gratia, of his mere love and grace, whereby on the
consideration of the mediation of Christ, he makes an effectual
grant and donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even
that of Christ himself to all that believe, and accounting it as
theirs, on his own gracious act, both absolves them from sin
and grants them right and title to eternal life. Hence,
17*
198 I5IPUTATI0N, AND THE NATURE OF IT.
(4.) In this imputation, the thing itself is first imputed to us,
and not any of the effects of it, but they are made ours by vir-
tue of that imputation. To say that the righteousness of Christ,
that is, his obedience and sufferings are imputed to us only as
to their effects, is to say that we have the benefit of them, and
no more; but imputation itself is denied. So say the Socinians,
but they know well enough, and ingenuously grant, that they
overthrow all true real imputation thereby. Schlictingius says,*
-' In order that we be justified by the righteousness of Christ, it is
not necessary that his righteousness be made ours. It is suffi-
cient that the righteousness of Christ be the cause of our justi-
fication. We grant you that the righteousness of Christ is our
righteousness, in as far as it redounds to our benefit and right-
eousness; but you understand it to be properly ours, that is,
attributed and ascribed to us." And it is not pleasing to see
some among ourselves with so great confidence take up the
sense and words of these men in their disputations against the
Protestant doctrine in this cause, that is, the doctrine of the
Church of England.
That the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, as to its
effects, has this sound sense in it; namely, that the effects of it
are made ours, by reason of that imputation. It is so imputed,
so reckoned to us of God, as that he really communicates all
the effects of it to us. But to say the righteousness of Christ
is not imputed to us, only its effects are so, is really to overthrow
all imputation. For (as we shall see) the effects of the righteous-
ness of Christ cannot be said properly to be imputed to us; and if
his righteousness itself be not so, imputation has no place herein,
nor can it be understood why the Apostle should so frequently
assert it as he does, Rom. iv. And therefore the Socinians who
expressly oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
and plead for a participation of its effects or benefits only,
wisely deny any such kind of righteousness of Christ, namely,
of satisfaction and merit, (or that the righteousness of Christ
as wrought by him, was either satisfactory or meritorious) as
alone may be imputed to us. For it will readily be granted,
that what alone they allow the righteousness of Christ to con-
sist in, cannot be imputed to us, whatever benefit we may have
* Nee eniin ut per Christi justitiam justificemur, opus est ut illius justitia nostra
fiat justitia; sed sufficit ut Christi justitia sit causa nostrne Justificationis ; et hac-
tenus possumus tibi concedere, Christi justitiam esse nostram justitiam, quatenus
nostrum in bonum justitiamque redundat; verum tu proprie nostram, id est, nobis
attributam ascriptamque inteliigis. Disp. pro. Socin. ad Meisner. pag. 250.
IMPUTATION, AND THE NATURE OF IT. 199
by it. But I do not understand how those who grant the right-
eousness of Christ to consist principally in his satisfaction for us
or in our stead, can conceive of an imputation of the effects of it
to us, without an imputation of the thing itself Seeing it is for
that as made ours, that we partake of the benefits of it. But
from the description of imputation and the instances of it. it ap-
pears that there can be no imputation of any thing, unless the
thing itself be imputed, nor any participation of the effects of
any thing, but what is grounded on the imputation of the thing
itself. Wherefore in our particular case, no imputation of the
righteousness of Christ is allowed, unless we grant itself to be
imputed; nor can we have any participation of the effects of it,
but on the supposition and foundation of that imputation. The
impertinent cavils that some of late have collected from the
Papists and Socinians, that if it be so, then are we as righteous
as Christ himself, that we have redeemed the world, and satis-
fied for the sins of others, that the pardon of sin is impossible,
and personal righteousness needless, shall afterwards be spoken
to, so far as they deserve.
All that we now aim to demonstrate, is only, that either the
righteousness of Christ itself is imputed to us, or there is no im-
putation in the matter of our justification, which whether there
be or no, is another question afterwards to be spoken to. For
as was said, the effects of the righteousness of Christ, cannot be
said properly to be imputed tons. For instance, pardon of sin
is a great etfect of the righteousness of Christ. Our sins are
pardoned on the account thereof. God for Christ's sake forgives
lis all our sins. But the pardon of sin cannot be said to be im-
puted to us, nor is so. Adoption, justification, peace with God,
all grace and glory, are effects of the righteousness of Christ.
But that these things are not imputed to us, nor can be so, is
evident from their nature. But we are made partakers of them
all, upon the account of the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ to us, and no otherwise.
Thus much may suffice to be spoken of the nature of impu-
tation of the righteousness of Christ; the grounds, reasons, and
causes whereof, we shall in the next place inquire into. And I
doubt not but we shall find in our inquiry, that it is no such
figment, as some ignorant of these things imagine, but on the
contrary, an important truth closely connected with the most
fundamental principles of the mystery of the gospel, and insep-
arable from the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
200 IMrUTATION OP" THE SINS OP
CHAPTER VIII.
IMPUTATION OF THE SINS OF THE CHURCH TO CHRIST. GROUNDS OF IT.
THE NATURE OF HIS SURETYSHIP. CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT.
CHRIST AND THE CHURCH ONE MYSTICAL PERSON. CONSEQUENCES
THEREOF.
Those who believe the imputation of the righteousness of Christ
to beUevers, for the justification of hfe, also unanimously pro-
fess, that the sins of all believers were imputed to Christ. And
this they do on many testimonies of the Scripture directly wit-
nessing thereto, some whereof shall be pleaded and vindicated
afterwards. At present we are only on the consideration of the
general notion of these things, and the declaration of the na-
ture of what shall be proved afterwards. And in the first place
we shall inquire into the foundation of this dispensation of God,
and the equity of it, or the grounds whereinto it is resolved,
without an understanding whereof, the thing itself cannot be
well apprehended.
The principal foundation hereof is, that Christ and the Church
in this design, were one mystical person, which state they ac-
tually coalesce in, through the uniting efficacy of tlie Holy Spi-
rit. He is the head, and believers are the members of that one
person, as the Apostle declares, 1 Cor, xii. 12, 13. Hence as
what he did is imputed to them, as if done by them, so what
they deserved on the account of sin was charged upon him. So
is it expressed by a learned prelate; "He sustained our cause,
who had united our flesh to himself, and thus, being joined to
us by the closest bond, and made one with us, what was ours,
he made to be his own."* And again, " what wonder, if con-
stituted in our person, and clothed with our flesh," &c.t The
ancients speak to the same purpose. " For this reason, the di-
vine power united itself with human weakness, that while God
makes these things which are ours to be his own, he might make
those things which are his to be ours."4: And also, " The Lord
Jesus Christ, our head, transforming into himself all the mem-
'^ Nostram causam snstincbat, qui nostram sibi carnem aduniverat, et ita nobis
arctissimo vinculo conjunctus, et huSnc, quae erant nostra fecit sua.
f Quid mirum si in nostra persona constitutus, nostram carnem indutus, &c. —
Montacut. Origin. Ecclesiast.
t Leo. Sorm. 17. Ideo so humanoe jnfirmitati virtus divina conscruit, ut dnni
Deus sua i'acit esse quaj nostra sunt, nostra faceret esse qua? sua sunt.
THE CHURCH TO CHRIST. - 201
bers of his body, uttered that exclamation, in his agony on the
cross, in the voice of his redeemed, which he had formerly
used in the Psalm."* And so speaks Augustine to the same
purpose,! "We hear the voice of the body from the mouth of
the head. The church suffered in him, when he suffered for the
church; as he suffers in the church, when the church suffers for
him. For as we have heard the voice of the church in Christ suf-
fering,'My God, my Lord, why hast thou forsaken me? look upon
me!' so we have heard the voice of Christ in the church sutfer-
ing, * Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me!"' But we may
yet look a little backward and further into the sense of the an-
cient church herein. Chj'istus, saith Irengeus, omiies Gentes
exinde ah Adam dispersas, et genera tio7ieni hominum in se-
met ipso recapitulatus est; unde a Paulo Typus futuri dic-
tus est ipse Adam; lib. 3. cap. 33. And again, Recapitulans
universum homimim. genus in se ab initio usque ad finem,
recapitulatus est et mortem ejus. In this of Recapitulation
there is no doubt but he had respect to the ai/axj^axatwutj, men-
tioned Ephes. i. 10. And it may be this was that which Ori-
^e\\ intended enigmatically, by saying " the soul of the first
Adam was the soul of Christ," as it is charged on him. And
Cyprian, Epist. 63, on bearing about the administration of the
sacred eucharist; nos om,nes portabat Christus; qui et peccata
nostra portabat. " He bare us," or suffered in our person,
" when he bare our sins." Whence Athanasius affirms of the
voice he used on the cross, ovx avto^ o xnptoj; uxko, -yji-iiii tv ixuvi^
rtaaxov-ti^ fjfisv, " we Suffered in him." Eusebius speaks many
things to this purpose. Demonstrat. Evangel, lib. 10. cap. 1.
Expounding those words of the Psalmist, "heal my soul, for,"
eras he would read them, ?/ " I have sinned against thee;"
and applying them to our Saviour in his sufferings, he says
thus, irctibav fa^ '^jx.Btspa; xoivortoiit, si; iavfov auttp-ftaj; " becaUSC he
took of our sins to himself; communicated our sins to himself,"
making them his own; for so he adds, oti, ta? vnxstspai a/iapi'tos
£|otx£tot7t£i/o5, "making our sins his own." And hecause in his
following words he fully expresses what I design to prove, I
shall transcribe them at large.J '' How then did he make our
* Sermo. 16. Caput nostrum Dominus Jesus Christus omnia in se corporis sui
membra transformans, quod olim in Psalmo eructaverat, id in supplicio crucis sub
redemptorum suorum voce clamavit.
t Epist. 120. ad Honoratuni; Audimus vocem corporis, ex ore capitis; Ecclesia
in iilo patiebatur, quando pro Ecclesia patiebatur, &c.
202 IMPUTATION OF THE SINS OP
sins to be his own, and how did he bear our iniquities? Is it
not from thence, that we are said to be his body, as the Apos-
tle speaks, ' Ye are the body of Christ, and members, for your
part, or of one another;' and as when one member suffers, all
the members safter; so the many members sinning and suffer-
ing, he according to the laws of sympathy in the same body,
(seeing that being the word of God, he would take the form of
a servant, and be joined to the common habitation of us all)
took the sorrows or labours of the suffering members on him,
and made all their infirmities his own, and according to the
laws of humanity, bare our sorrow and labour for us. And the
Lamb of God did not only these things for us, but he under-
went torments, and was punished for us; that which he was
no ways exposed to for himself, but we were so by the multi-
tude of our sins; and thereby he became the cause of the par-
don of our sins; namely, because he underwent death, stripes,
reproaches, transferring the thing which we had deserved to
himself; and was made a curse for us, taking to himself the
curse that was due to us; for what was he, but a price of
redemption for our souls? In our person therefore the oracle
speaks, — whilst freely uniting himself to us, and us to himself,
and making our (sins or) passions his own, he says, 'I have
said, Lord be merciful to me, heal my soul, for I have sinned
against thee.'"
That our sins were transferred to Christ and made his; that
thereon he underwent the punishment that was due to us for
them; and that the ground hereof, whereinto its equity is re-
solved, is the union between him and us, is fully declared in
this discourse. So says the learned and pathetical author of
the Homilies on Matthew v. in the works of Chrysostom,
Horn. 54, which is the last of them. In came sua omneni
yi KcL^'' 0, a-atjuu. auTou iivsii KeyojuiSa. ; nxra. tov dTrofToXov <t>>i(7dLVTct, bjun; 'urn crai/ui
XpiO-roUy KXI (A'cKH in jJ-if^MZ X.a.1 KdiH' 0 Tra.T'^iVTOi iVO; JUiKiV;, <TVy.7tCt<TyH TrOLVTa. TO. y.iK>i,
itjTu TTOKKm juiKasv Trmr^ovTaiv x.st.1 ajua.pTo.vcvTm, xa.i olvtoq kata tou; tih (rii/uTa.6ua.c
Xoyov;-, \7n1Sr\7rif1 tvS'(,iino'i ©ssi/ \oyo^ Iv /uopc^yiv ScvKcv hst./ii:v, x.ut tu >coi\a> ttavtu^v tffxav
cumaty.a.Ti cuvxidmAf^ tou; tosv 7ra.7^cvra>v /uihrn Trcvouc \ti isLwrcv u.vAKctfA^a.vii, xm tolc
i^fAiTipxf vdTov; 'iS'ta7roi»Txi, K'M rrctvTmv ifjuu'v vTripuhyu km iiTngTrcvn hhto, tov; tuc ^/Aav-
dpeuTTtct; vo/uou;. ou /uovov J'e tauto. Trpa^ct; a ajuvo; tou Qicj, dhkct xn vTnp if^eev xoXita-Sug
x.xt Ti/uci'ptAv vTTo^^uv, iiv cLVTo; fji.i)i ouK ufiiKilv, aXK^ yifj.it; TOU TTKndou; hiniv TriTr'AH/jfASkn^ue-
\u>v, iijuiv aiTtci Tit; T^f ajUApTXjuuTtev at^i^nui; kslti^T);, Sts tov uTTip i/ucov dvA.S'i^iifx.ac;
Bavhtov, /ucta-Ttya.; ts x.a.1 i0pii;, hcli uTi/xtA; Yifjt.iv i7ro<^itKc/Aiva; \t; duTOV ^STa6f/?, xa/
TXV )\fA.l1 7rp0S-TiTtfl>lfAiV>IV KATApAU 6'^' iAUTOy iXXUS-O.;, yiVO/UiVO; UTTif YlfXCt^l KATU^A. KAt Tl yap
akXo a.VTt-\-v^ov ; J;o ^xtriv i^ ifjinpov Trpoiranrov to Xoytov — So"T6 iiKOTce; ivcev iAVTOv iifAiv,
yjUA; Ti aUTOO KAi TO, tlfAiTipA TTAdu ti'lOTTOlOUy.iVO; ip>l7tV, SyCD IITTA, KUpli iKiMTCV fAi, tA'7At
Tiiy -\-u)(/iv fjiov, oTt yijuapTov <rot.
THE CHURCH TO CHRIST. 203
carnem siiscepit; crucijixus, omnem carneni crucijixit in se.
He speaks of the church. So they speak often others of them;
that " he bare ns," that " he took us with him on the cross,"
that " we were all crucified in him;" as Prosper: "He is not
saved by the cross of Christ, who is not crucified in Christ!"
Resp. ad cap. Gal. cap. 9.
This then I say is the foundation of the imputation of the
sins of the church to Christ, namely, that he and it are one per-
son, the grounds whereof we must inquire into.
But hereon sundry discourses ensue, and various inquiries
are made. What a person is, in what sense, and how many
senses that word may be used; what is the true notion of it,
what is a natural person, what a legal, civil, or political person;
in the explication whereof some have fallen into mistakes.
And if we should enter into this field, we need not fear matter
enough of debate and altercation. But I must needs say, that
these things belong not to our present occasion; nor is the union
of Christ and the church illustrated, but obscured by them.
For Christ and believers are neither one natural person, nor a
legal or political person, nor any such person as the laws, cus-
toms, or usages of men know or allow of. They are one mys-
tical person, whereof although there may be some imperfect
resemblances found in natural or political unions, yet the union
from whence that denomination is taken between him and us,
is of that nature, and arises from such reasons and causes, as
no personal union among men, (or the union of many persons)
has any concern in. And therefore as to the representation of
it to our weak understandings unable to comprehend the depth
of heavenly mysteries, it is compared to unions of divers kinds
and natures. So is it represented by that of man and wife; not
to those mutual affections which give them only a moral union,
but from the extraction of the first woman, from the flesh and
bone of the first man, and the institution of God for the indi-
vidual society of life thereon. This the Apostle at large de-
clares, Ephes. V. 25 — 32. Whence he concludes, that from the
union thus represented, " we are members of his body, of his
flesh and of his bones," or have such a relation to him, as Eve
had to Adam, when she was made of his flesh and bone; and
so was one flesh with him. So also it is compared to the union
of the head and members of the same natural body, 1 Cor. xii.
12, and to a political union also between a ruling or political
head, and its political members; but never exclusively to the
union of a natural head, and its members comprised in the same
204 GROUNDS OF THE IMPUTATION
expression, Ephes. iv. 15; Col. ii. 19. And so also to sundry
things in nature, as a vine and its branches, John xv. 1 — 3.
And it is declared by the relation that was between Adam and
his posterity, by God's institution and the law of creation;
Rom. V. 12, &c. And the Holy Ghost by representing the union
that is between Christ and believers, by such a variety of re-
semblances, in things agreeing only in the common or genera!
notion of union on various grounds, sufficiently manifests that
it is not of, nor can be reduced to any one kind of them. And
this will yet be made more evident by the consideration of the
causes of it, and the grounds whereto it is resolved. But
whereas it would require much time and diligence to handle
them at large, which the occasional mention of them here will
not admit, I shall only briefly refer to the heads of them.
1. The first spring or cause of this union, and of all the other
causes of it, lies in that eternal compact .that was between the
Father and the Son, concerning the recovery and salvation of
fallen mankind. Herein among other things as the effects
thereof, the assumption of our nature, (the foundation of this
union) was designed. The nature and terms of this compact,
counsel, and agreement, I have declared elsewhere, and there-
fore must not here again insist upon it. But the relation be-
tween Christ and the church, proceeding from hence, and so
being an effect of infinite wisdom, in the counsel of the Father
and Son, to be made effectual by the Holy Spirit, must be dis-
tinguished from all other unions or relations whatever.
2. The Lord Christ as to the nature which he was to assume,
was hereon predestinated to grace and glory. He was ^pofy-
vcaefievos " fore-ordaiued," predestinated, ''before the founda-
tion of the vv'orld;" 1 Pet. i. 20. That is, he wassoas to his office,
so to all the grace and glory required thereto, and consequenE
thereon. All the grace and glory of the human nature of Christ,
was an effect of free divine pre-ordination. God chose it from
all eternity, to a participation of all which it received in time.
Neither can any other cause of the glorious exaltation of that
portion of our nature, be assigned.
3. This grace and glory whereto he was pre-ordained, was
twofold. (1) That which was peculiar to himself; (2) That
which was to be communicated by and through him to the
Church. Of the first sort was the ;^agt5 tviuosi^s, " ihe grace of
personal union,^' that single effect of divine wisdom, (whereof
there is no shadow nor resemblance in any other works of God,
either of creation, providence, or grace) which his nature was
OF THE church's SINS TO CHRIST. 205
filled with. " Full of grace and truth." And all his personal
glory, power, authority, and majesty in his exaltation as Medi-
ator at the right hand of God, which is expressive of them all, be-
long hereto. These things were peculiar to him, and all of them
effects of his eternal predestination. But (2) He was not thus
predestinated absolutely, but also with respect to that grace and
glory which in him and by him, was to be communicated to the
church. And he was so,
1. As the pattern and exemplary cause of our predestination;
for we are " predestinated to be conformed to the image of the
Son of God, that he might be the first-born among many breth-
ren," Rom. viii. 29. Hence he shall even " change our vile
body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," Phil,
iii. 21 ; that " when he appears," we may be every way " like
him," 1 John iii. 2.
2. As the means and cause of communicating all grace and
glory to us. For we are " chosen in him before the founda-
tion of the world, that we should be holy, and predestinated
to the adoption of children by him," Ephes. i. 3 — 5. He was
designed as the only procuring cause of all spiritual blessings
in heavenly things to those who are chosen in him. Wherefore,
3. He was thus fore-ordained as the head of the Church, it
being the design of God to gather all things into a head in him,
Ephes. i. 10.
4. All the elect of God were in his eternal purpose and de-
sign, and in the everlasting covenant between the Father and
the Son, committed to him to be delivered from sin, the law,
and death, and to be brought to the enjoyment of God. " Thine
they were, and thou gavest them to me," John xvii. 6. Hence
was that love of his to them, wherewith he loved them and
gave himself for them, antecedently to any good or love in
them, Ephes. v. 25,26; Gal. ii. 20; Rev. i. 5, 6.
5. In the prosecution of this design of God, and in the ac-
complishment of the everlasting covenant, "in the fulness of
time he took upon him our nature," or took it into personal
subsistence with himself. The especial relation that ensued
hereon between him and the elect children, the Apostle de-
clares at large, Heb. ii. 10 — 17. And I refer the reader to our
exposition of that place.
6. On these foundations he midertook to be " the surety of
the new covenant," Heb. vii. 22. "Jesus was made a surety
of a better testament." This alone of all the fundamental con-
siderations of the imputation of our sins to Christ, I shall insist
18
206 NATURE OF CHRIST's SURETYSHIP.
upon, OR purpose to obviate or remove some mistakes about
the nature of his suretyship, and the respect of it to the cove-
nant, whereof he was the surety. And I shall borrow what I
shall offer hereon, from our exposition of this passage of the
Apostle on the seventh chapter of this Epistle not yet published,
with very little variation from what I have discoursed on that
occasion, without the least respect to, or prospect of any treat-
ing on our present subject.
The word iyyvoi, is no where found in the Scripture, but in
this place only. But the advantage which some would make
from thence, namely, that it being but one place wherein the
Lord Christ is called a surety, it is not of much force, or much
to be insisted on, is both unreasonable and absurd. For (1)
this one place is of divine revelation, and therefore is of the
same authority with twenty testimonies to the same purpose.
One divine testimony makes our faith no less necessary, and no
less secures it from being deceived, than a hundred.
The signification of the word is known, from the use of it,
and what it signifies among men, that no question can be made
of its sense and importance, though it be but once used; and
this on any occasion removes the difficulty and danger, tn^v
arta.% %Eyo^£viov, of expressions but once used in Scripture. (3)
The thing itself intended is so fully declared by the Apostle in
this place, and so plentifully taught in other places of the
Scripture, that the single use of this word may add light, but
can be no prejudice to it.
Something may be spoken to the signification of the word
tyyi^os which will give light to the thing intended by it. Tvaxor
is Fb/a manus, the palm of the hand; thence is fyytoj, or ilc
to yvaxov, to deliver into the hand. F.yyvrjffji is of the same
signification. Hence being a surety is interpreted by striking
the hand, Prov. vi. 1. " My son, if thou be surety for thy friend,
if thou hast stricken thy hand, with a stranger." So it an-
swers the Hebrew ^-^y which the Lxx render fyytjaw, Prov. vi. 1:
xvii. 18; xx. 19; and by Stsyyvaio, Nehem. v. 3. ^nj? originally
signifies to 77iingle, or a mixture of any things or persons.
And thence from the conjunction and mixture that is between
a surety and him for whom he is a surety, whereby they coa-
lesce into one person, as to the ends of that suretyship, it is
used for a surety, or to give surety. And he that was, or did
3ip a surety, or become a surety, was to answer for him for
whom he was so, whatsoever befel him. So is it described.
Gen. xliii. 9, in the words of Judah to his father Jacob, con-
NATURE OF CHRISt's SURETYSHIP. 207
cerning Benjamin. "I will be surety for him; of my hand
shall thou require him." In undertaking to be surety for him,
as to his safety and preservation, he engages himself to answer
for all that should befal him, for so he adds; " if I bring him
not to thee, and set him before thee, let me be guilty for ever.''
And on this ground he entreats Joseph, that he might be a ser-
vant and a bondman in Benjamin's stead, that he might go
free and return to his father, Gen. xliv. 32, 33. This is requir-
ed to such a surety, that he undergo and answer all that he
for whom he is a surety is liable to, whether in things criminal
or civil, so far as the suretyship extends. A surety is an under-
taker for another, or others, who thereon is justly and legally
to answer what is due to them, or from them. Nor is the word
otherwise used. See Job xvii. 3; Prov. vi. 1; xi. 15; xvii. 11:
XX. 16; xxvii. 13. So Paul became a surety to Philemon for
Onesimus. Eyyujj is sponsio, expromissio, fidejussio; an under-
taking or giving security for any thing or person to another,
whereon an agreement ensued. This in some cases was by
pledges, or an earnest, Isa. xxxvi. 8. " Give pledges," surety,
hostages, for the true performance of condiiions. Hence is pt
appagwj/ a pledge or earnest, Eph. i. 14. Wherefore iyyvo^ is
sponsor, fidejussor, prses, one that voluntarily takes on himseif
the cause or condition of another, to answer, undergo, or pay
what he is liable to, or to see it done, whereon he becomes
justly and legally obnoxious to performance; in this sense is
the word here used by the Apostle, for it has no other.
In our present inquiry into the nature of this suretyship of
Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, name-
ly, whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the
part of God to us, to assure us, that the promise of the cove-
nant on his part should be accomplished; or also and principally
an undertaker on our part, for the performance of what is re-
quired, if not of us, yet with respect to us, that the promise
may be accomplished. The first of these is vehemently as-
serted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and
Hammond in their annotations on this place.
The words of Schlictingius are, " Jesus is called the surety
of the covenant, because, on the part of God, he has given us
an assurance that God will fulfil the promises of the covenant ;
not because he became surety for us to God, or took upon him-
self the payment of our debts. For Christ was not sent by us,
but by God, in whose name he has come to us, made a coven-
ant with us, and engaged that its promises shall be fulfilled.
208 NATURE OF CHRISt's SURETYSHIP.
And therefore he is not called simply a surety, but a surety of
the covenant. Now Christ became a surety for the truth of
the Divine covenant, not only inasmuch as he constantly testi-
fied by his words that it should be firm and stable, but inas-
much as he proved the truth of his mission by the indubitable
evidence of facts — by the spotless innocence and holiness of
his life, by the evidently Divine works, which he performed,
and by the endurance of a cruel death, to which he submitted
in attestation of the truth of his doctrine."* After which he
subjoins a long discourse about the evidences which we have
of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account
of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ.
The words of Grotius are: " Christ became a surety; that is he
has given as an assurance of the promise, not only by his
words but by the perpetual sanctity of his life, by the death
which he endured for that end, and by numerous miracles;"t
which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlictingius. To
the same purpose Dr. Hammond expounds it, that he was a
'•sponsor or surety for God, to the confirmation of the promises
of the covenant."
On the other hand the generality of expositors, ancient and
modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, on the place
affirm, that the Lord Christ as the surety of the covenant, was
properly a surety or undertaker to God for us, and not a surety
and undertaker to us for God. And because this is a matter
of great importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the
church is highly concerned, I shall insist a little upon it.
And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to
prove that Christ was only a surety for God to us. Nov/ this
is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office or work
of surety, nor from the nature of the covenant, whereof he was
a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole ar-
* Sponsor foederis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit, id est
fidem fecerit, Deum federis promissiones servaturum. Non vero quasi pro nobis
spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nee enim
nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Cliristus ad nos venit, fcedus no-,
biseum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se rccepit; ideoque
nee sponsor simpliciter, sed foederis sponsor noininatur; spopondit autem Christus
pro foederis divini veritate, non tantum quatcnus id firmum ratumque fore verbis
perpetuo testatus est; sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem, maximis rerum ip-
sarum comprobavit documentis, cum perfecta vitae innocentia et sanctitate, cum
divinis plane quae patravit operibus i cum mortis adeo trueulentee, quam pro doc-
trinae suae veritate subiit, perpessione.
t Spopondit Christus, i. e. Nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis, sed per-,
oetua vitae sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata et miraculis plurimis.
NATURE OF CHRISt's SURETYSHIP. 209
gument insisted on is, that we do not give Ciirist as a surety
of the covenant to God, but he gives him to us, and therefore
he is a surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises,
and not for us to pay our debts, or to answer what is required
of us.
But there is no force in this argument. For it belongs not
to the nature of a surety, by whom he is or may be designed
to his office and work therein. His own voluntary susception
of the office and work, is all that is required, however he may
be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own
accord voluntarily undertakes for another, on what grounds,
reasons, or considerations soever he does so, is his surety.
And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the church. For
when it was said, " sacrifice and burnt-ofiering and whole
burnt-offerings for sin, God would not have," or accept as
sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so that the
covenant might be established and made effectual to us, then
said he, " Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God," Heb. x. 5, 6.
He willingly and voluntarily out of his own abundant good-
ness and love, took upon him to make atonement for us,
wherein he was our surety. And accordingly this undertaking
is ascribed to that love which he exercised herein. Gal. ii. 20.
1 John iii. 16. Rev. i. 5. And there was this in it moreover,
that he took upon him our nature or the seed of Abraham,
wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither did
nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us, that where-
in and whereby he was so, which is as much as if we had de-
signed him to his work, as to the true reason of his being our
surety. Wherefore notwithstanding those antecedent transac-
tions that were between the Father and him in this matter, it
was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety,
and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was
the formal reason of his being instated in that office.
It is indeed weak and contrary to all common experience,
that none can be a surety for others, unless those others design
him and appoint him so to be. The principal instances of surety-
ship in the world, have been by the voluntary undertaking of
such as were no way procured so to do by them for whom
they undertook; and in such undertakings he to whom it is
made, is no less considered, than they for whom it is made.
As when Judah of his own accord became a surety for Benja-
min, he had as much respect to the satisfaction of his father,
as'the safety of his brother. And so the Lord Christ, in his
18*
210 NATURE OF CHRISt's SURETYSHIP.
undertaking to be a surety for us, had respect to the glory of
God before our safety.
1. We may consider the arguments whence it is evident that
he neither was, nor could be a surety to us for God, but was so
for us to God. For
1. Ey^uoj or iyyvtjtiji a surety, is one that undertakes for an-
other wherein he is defective really or in reputation. What-
ever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in
depositing of real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by
any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the
defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety.
Such a one is sponsor, or fidejussor, in all good authors and
common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit
himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there
IS no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words
of a surety in the behalf of another whose ability or reputa-
tion is dubious, are, ad me recipio, faciei, aut faciatn. " I
engage that either he shall do it, or I will.'' And when iyyuoj
is taken adjectively, as sometimes, it signifies satisdationibus
obnoxius ; liable to payments for others that are insolvent.
2. God can therefore have no surety properly, because there
can be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may
be indeed a question whether any word or promise, be a word
or promise of God. To assure us hereof is not the work of a
surety, but of any one, or any means, that may give evidence
that so it is, that is, of a witness. But upon a supposition that
what is proposed is his word or promise, there can be no imagi-
nation or fear of any defect on his part, so that there should be
any need of a surety for the performance of it. He therefore
makes use of witnesses to confirm his word: that is, to testify
that such promises he has made, and so he will do. So the
Lord Christ was his witness, Isa. xliii. 10. '• Ye are my witness-
es, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen."
But they were not all his sureties. So he affirms, that he " came
into the world to bear witness to the truth," John xviii, 37;
that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was " the min-
ister of the circumcision for the truth of the promises of God
to the fathers," Rom. xv. 8. But a surety for God, properly
so called, he was not, nor could be. The distance and differ-
ence is wide enough between a witness and a surety. For a
surety must be of more ability, or more credit and reputation
than he or those for whom he is a surety, or there is no need
of his suretyship; or at least he must add to their credit, and
NATURE OF CHRISt's SURETYSHIP. 211
make it better than without him. This none can be for God,
no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work was
the servant of the Father. And the Apostle does not use this
word in a general improper sense for any one that by any
means gives assurance of any other thing, else he had ascribed
nothing peculiar to Christ. For in such a sense all the prophets
and apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirm-
ed the truth of his word and promises, with the laying down
of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertakes to
do that for others which they cannot do for themselves; or at
least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them.
3. The Apostle had before at large declared, who, and what
was God's surety in this matter of the covenant, and how im-
possible it was that he should have any other. And this was
himself alone, interposing himself by his oath. For in this
cause, " because he had none greater to swear by, he sware by
himself," Heb. vi. 13, 14. Wherefore if God Avould give any
other surety besides himself, it must be one greater than he.
This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only.
Many ways he may and does use for the declaring and testify-
ing of his truth to us, that we may know and believe it to be
his word; and so the Lord Christ in his ministry was the prin-
cipal witness of the truth of God. But other surety than him-
self he can have none. And therefore,
4. When he would have us in this matter not only come to
the full assurance of faith concerning his promises, but also to
have strong consolation therein, he resolves it wholly into the
immutability of his counsel, as declared by his promise and
oath, Heb. vi. 18,19. So that neither is God capable of hav-
ing any surety properly so called, nor do we stand in need of
any on his part, for the confirmation of our faith in the highest
degree.
5. We on all accounts stand in need of a surety for us, or on
our behalf. Nor without the interposition of such a surety,
could any covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or
•' an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure." In
the first covenant made with Adam there was no surety, but
God and men were the immediate covenanters. And although
we were then in a state and condition able to perform and an-
swer all the terms of the covenant, yet was it broken and dis-
annulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise of
God, it was necessary that on the making of a new covenant
he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the cove-
212 NATURE OF CHRISt's SURETYSHIP.
nant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false and
blasphemous to imagine. It was man alone who failed and
broke that covenant. Wherefore it was necessary that, upon
the making of the new covenant, and that v/ith a design and
purpose that it should never be disannulled as the former was,
we should have a surety and undertaker for us. For if that
first covenant was not firm and stable, because there was no
surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that ability
which we had to answer the terms of it; how much less can
any other be so, now our natures are become depraved and
sinful ? Wherefore we alone were capable of a surety, pro-
perly so called, for us; we alone stood in need of him, and
without him the covenant could not be firm, and inviolate on
our parts. The surety therefore of this covenant is so with
God for us.
6. It is the priesthood of Christ that the Apostle treats of in
this place, and that alone. Wherefore he is a surety as he is a
priest, and in the discharge of that office, and therefore is so
with God on our behalf This Schlictingius observes, and is
aware what will ensue against his pretensions, which he en-
deavours to obviate.* " Some may think it strange that the in-
spired writer, when treating of the priesthood of Christ, in
what precedes and what follows, all at once calls him the
surety of the covenant, and not the priest. Why did he not
say, 'of so much better a covenant was Jesus made di priest?^
for this the whole context evidently seems to require. We may
believe that under the name of suretyship is understood the
priesthood also of Christ. For it is the office of a surety, not
only to promise something in another's name, and to pledge •
his credit for another, but also, if need be, to perform in ano-
ther's name, what he engaged. In human affairs, this takes
place, when he for whom the surety engaged, does not per-
form; but in this case for a contrary reason (for the former
cannot have a place here) inasmuch as he for whom Christ be-
* Mirutn porro alicui videri posset cur divinus author de Christi sacerdotio in
superioribus et in sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem foederis non vero
sacerdotem vocet? Cur non dixerit tanto prcestantioris foederis factus est sacer-
dos Jesus? hocenim plane rcquirerc vidctur totus orationis contextus. Credibile
est in voce sponsionis sacerdotiuni quoque Cliristi intelligi. Sponsoris enim noii
modo est alieno nomine quippiam promitterc, ct fidcm suani pro alio interponere;
.sed etiam, si ita res ferat, alterius nomine id quod spopondit praestare. In rebus
quidem humanis, si id non prcestet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hie vero propter
contrariani causam (nam prior liic locum habere non potest) nempe quatenusille
pro quo spopondit Christus per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet; qua
in re prsecipuc Christi sacerdotium continetur.
CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT. 213
comes a surety, exhibits to us his promises through Christ him-
self; and in this chiefly consists the priesthood of Christ."
Answ. (1) It may indeed seem strange to any one who
imagines Christ to be such a surety as he does, why the Apos-
tle should so call him, and so introduce him in the description
of his priestly oflice, as that which belongs thereto. But grant
what is the proper work and duty of a surety, and whom the
Lord Jesus was a surety for, and it is evident that nothing
more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him, when he
was in the declaration of that oflice. (2) He confesses that by
his exposition of this suretyship of Christ, as making him a
surety for God, he contradicts the nature and only notion of a
surety among men. For sucli a one he acknowledges does
nothing but in the defect and inabUity of them for whom he is
engaged and undertakes. He is to pay that which they owe.
and to do what is to be done by them, which they cannot per-
form. And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place,
the Apostle makes use of a word no where else used in the
whole Scripture, to teach us that which it never signifies among
men, which is improbable and absurd. For the sole reason
why he made use of it was, that from the nature and notion of
it amongst men in other cases, we may understand the signifi-
cation of it; what he intends by it, and what, under that name,
he ascribes to the Lord Jesus. (3) He has no way to solve the
Apostle's mention of Christ being a surety in the description of
his priestly office, but by overthrowing the nature of that oflice
also. For to confirm this absurd notion that Christ as a priest
was a surety for God, he would have us believe that the priest-
hood of Christ consists in his making eff'ectual to us the promi-
ses of God, or his eff'ectual communicating of the good things
promised to us; the falsehood of which notion, really destruc-
tive of the priesthood of Christ, I have elsewhere at large de-
tected and confuted. Wherefore seeing the Lord Christ is a
surety of the covenant as a priest, and all the sacerdotal actings
of Christ have God for their immediate object, and are per-
formed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.
A surety, sponsor, vas, prses, fidejussor, for us, the Lord
Christ was, by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich grace
and love, to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our
parts, that we may enjoy the benefits of the coveiiant, the
grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in it, in the
way and manner determined on by divine wisdom. And this
may be reduced to two heads. 1. His answering for our trans-
214 CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT.
gressions against the first covenant. 2. His purchase and pro-
curement of the grace of the new. " He was made a curse for
us, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us," Gal. iii.
13—15.
1. He undertook as the surety of the covenant to answer for
all the sins of those who are to be, and are, made partakers of
the benefits of it. That is, to undergo the punishment due to
their sins; to make atonement for them, by oifering himself a
propitiatory sacrifice for the expiation of their sins, redeeming
them by the price of his blood from their state of misery and
bondage under the law and the curse of it, Isa. liii. 4 — 6, 10;
Matth. XX. 28; I Tim. ii. 6; 1 Cor. vi. 20; Rom. iii. 25,26;
Heb. X. 5— S; Rom. viii. 2, 3; 2 Cor. v. 19—21; Gal. iii. 13.
And this was absolutely necessary that the grace and glory
prepared in the covenant might be communicated to us. \yith-
out this undertaking of his, and performance of it, the righteous-
ness and faithfulness of God would not permit, that sinners,
such as had apostatized from him, despised his authority and
rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and
curse of the law, should again be received into his favour, and
made partakers of grace and glory. This therefore the Lord
Christ took upon himself, as the surety of the covenant.
2. That those who were to be taken into this covenant should
receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, ful-
fil its conditions, and yield the obedience which God required
therein. For by the ordination of God, he was to procure, and
did merit and procure for them the Holy Spirit, and all need-
ful supplies of grace to make them new creatures,' and enable
them to yield obedience to God from a new principle of spiritual
life, and that faithfully to the end. So was he the surety of
this better testament. But all things belonging hereto will be
handled at large in the place from whence, as I said, these are
taken, as suitable to our present occasion.
But some have other notions of these things. For they say,
"that Christ by his death, and his obedience therein, whereby
he offered himself a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour to God,
procured for us the new covenant; or, as one speaks, all that
we iiave by the death of Christ is, that thereto we owe the
covenant of grace. For herein he did and suffered what God
required and freely appointed him to do and suffer. Not that
the justice of God required any such thing with respect to their
sins for whom he died, and in whose stead, or 'to bestead' whom,
he suffered, but what by a free constitution of divine wisdom
CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT. 215
and sovereignty was appointed to him. Hereon, God was
pleased to remit the terms of the old covenant, and to enter
into a new covenant with mankind upon terms suited to our
reason, possible to our abilities, and every way advantageous
to us. For these terms are faith and sincere obedience, or such
an assent to the truth of divine revelations, as is effectual in
obedience to the will of God contained in them, upon the en-
couragement given thereto in the promises of eternal life, or a
future reward made therein. On the peformance of these con-
ditions our justification, adoption, and future glory depend; for
they are that righteousness before God, whereon he pardons
our sins, and accepts our persons, as if we were perfectly right-
eous." Wherefore by this procuring the new covenant for us,
which they ascribe to the death of Christ, they intend the abro-
gation of the old covenant, or of the law, or at least such a de-
rogation from it, that it shall no more oblige us either to sinless
obedience or panishment, nor require a perfect righteousness
for our justification before God; and the constitution of a new
law of obedience accommodated to our present state and con-
dition, on whose observance all the promises of the gospel
depend.
Others say, that in the death of Christ there was real satis-
faction made to God; not to the law, or to God according to
what the law required, but to God absolutely. That is, he did
what God was well pleased and satisfied with, without any
respect to his justice or the corse of the law. And they add,
that hereon the whole righteousness of Christ is imputed to us,
so far as that we are made partakers of the benefits thereof.
And moreover, that the way of the communication of them
to us, is by the new covenant which by his death, the Lord
Christ procured. For the conditions of this covenant are estab-
lished in the covenant itself, whereon God will bestow all the
benefits and effects of it upon us, which are faith and obedience.
Wherefore what the Lord Christ has done for us, is thus far
accepted as our legal righteousness, that God upon our faith
and obedience with respect thereto, releases and pardons all
our sins of omission and commission. Upon this pardon there
is no need of any positive perfect righteousness to our justifica-
tion or salvation, but our own personal righteousness is accept-
ed with God in the room of it, by virtue of the new covenant
which Christ has procured. So is the doctrine hereof stated by
Curcella3us, and those that join with him, or follow him.
Sundry things there are in these opinions that deserve an ex-
216 CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT.
amination; and they will most, if not all of them, occur to us
in our progress. That which alone we have occasion to inquire
into with respect to what we have discoursed concerning the
Lord Christ as surety of the covenant, and which is the found-
ation of all that is asserted in them, is, that Christ by his
death procured the new covenant for us; which, as one says,
" is all that we have thereby;" which if it should prove other-
wise, we are not beholden to it for any thing at all. But these
things must be examined. And,
1. Thetermsof 'procuring the new covenant' are ambiguous.
It is not ^'■et (that I know of) by any declared how the Lord
Christ procured it; whether he did so by his satisfaction and
obedience, as the meritorious cause of it, or by what other
kind of causality. Unless this be stated, we are altogether un-
certain what relation of the new covenant to the death of
Christ is intended. And to say that thereto we owe the new
covenant, does not mend the matter, but rather renders the
terms more ambiguous. Neither is it declared whether the
constitution of the covenant, or the communication of the be-
nefits of it, is intended. It is yet no less general, that ' God was
so well pleased with what Christ did, that hereon he made and
entered into a new covenant with mankind.' This they may
grant who yet deny the whole satisfaction and merit of Christ.
If they mean that the Lord Christ by his obedience and suffering
meritoriously procured the making and establishing the new co-
venant, which was all that he so procured, and the entire effect
of his death, what they say may be understood, but the whole
nature of the mediation of Christ is overthrown thereby.
2. This opinion is liable to a great prejudice, in that whereas
it is in such a fundamental article of our religion, and about
that wherein the eternal welfare of the church is so nearly
concerned, there is no mention made of it in the Scripture.
For is it not strange, if this be, as some speak, the sole ef-
fect of the death of Christ, whereas sundry other things are
frequently in the Scripture ascribed to it, as the effects and
fruits thereof, that this which is only so should be no where
mentioned, neither in express words, nor such as will allow of
this sense by any just or lawful consequence. Our redemption,
pardon of sins, the renovation of our natures, our sanctifica-
tion, justification, peace with God, eternal life, are all jointly
and severally assigned thereto in places almost without num-
ber. But it is no where said in the Scripture, " that Christ by
his death, merited, procured, obtained the new covenant;" or
CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT. 217
that God should enter into a new covenant with mankind; yea
as we shall see, that which is contrary to it, and inconsistent
with it, is frequently asserted.
3. To clear the truth herein, we must consider the several
notions and causes of the new covenant; with the true and
real respect of the death of Christ thereto. And it is variously
represented to us.
1. In the designation and preparation of its terras and bene-
fits in the counsel of God. And tliis although it has the nature
of an eternal decree, yet it is not the same with the decree of
election, as some suppose. For that properly respects the sub-
jects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared. This
is the preparation of that grace and glory, as to the way and
manner of their communication. Some learned men judge
that this counsel and purpose of the will of God, to give grace
and glory in and by Jesus Christ to the elect in the way and
by the means by him prepared, is formally the covenant of
grace, or at least that the substance of the covenant is com-
prised therein. But it is certain, that more is required to com-
plete the whole nature of a covenant. Nor is this purpose or
counsel of God called the covenant in the Scripture, but is only
proposed as the spring and fountain of it, Eph. i. 3 — 11. Unto
the full exemplification of the covenant of grace, there is re-
quired the declaration of this counsel of God's will, accompanied
with the means and powers of its accomplishment, and the
prescription of the ways whereby we are so to be interested
in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the in-
quiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the
first thing that ought to come under consideration. For nothing
can be the procuring cause of the covenant which is not so of
this spring and fountain of it, of this idea of it in the mind of
God, of the preparation of its terms and benefits. But this is
nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death
or mediation of Christ ; and to ascribe it thereto, is to over-
throw the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither
can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and
counsel of God, be the effect of, or procured by any thing that
is external and temporal.
2. It may be considered with respect to the federal transac-
tions between the Father and the Son, concerning the accom-
plishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein
they consisted, I have declared at large; Exercitat. vol. 2.
Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it
19
218 CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT.
SO called in the Scripture. But yet some will not distinguish be-
tween the covenantor the mediator, and the covenant of grace,
because the promises of the covenant absolutely are said to be
made to Christ, Gal. iii. 16; and he is the rt^t^tov dixtixov, or first
subject of all the grace of it. But in the covenant of the me-
diator, Christ stands alone for himself, and undertakes for him-
self alone, and not as the representative of the church. But
this he is in the covenant of grace. But this is that wherein it
had its designed establishment as to all the ways, means, and
ends of its accomplishment; and all things so disposed as that
it might be effectual to the eternal glory of the wisdom, grace,
righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of
grace could not be procured by any means or cause, but that
which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of
God the Father with the Son, as undertaking the work of me-
diation. And as this is nowhere ascribed to the death of Christ
in the Scripture, so to assert it, is contrary to all spiritual reason
and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ by his death
should procure the agreement between God and him, that he
should die ?
3. With respect to the declaration of it by especial revela-
tion. This we may call God's making or establishing it, if we
please; though making of Ihe covenant in Scripture, is applied
principally, if not only, to its execution or actual application to
persons, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Jerem. xxxii. 40. This declaration
of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the
mediator for the making of it effectual to his glory, is most
usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold,
1. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; so was it
first declared to, and established with Adam, and afterwards
with Abraham. The promise is the declaration of tlie purpose
of God before declared, or the free determination and counsel
of his will, as to his dealing with sinners on the supposition of
the fall, and their forfeiture of the first covenant state. Hereof
the grace and will of God was the only cause, Heb. viii. S.
And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procure-
ment, for he himself and all that he was to do for us, was the
substance of that promise. And this promise as it is declara-
tive of the purpose or counsel of the will of God, for the com-
munication of grace and glory to sinners, in and by the media-
tion of Christ, according to the ways and on the terms prepared
and disposed in his sovereign wisdom and pleasure, is formally
the new covenant, though something yet is to be added to com-
CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT. 219
plete its application to us. Now the substance of the first pro-
mise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually com-
prised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for
the recovery of mankind from sin and misery by his death.
Gen. iii. 15. Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his media-
tion, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the pro-
mise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was
not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we
owe it thereto,
2. In the additional prescription of the v/ay and means
whereby it is the will of God, that we shall enter into a cove-
nant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This
being virtually comprised in the absolute promise (for every
promise of God tacitly requires faith and obedience in us) is
expressed in other places by the way of the condition required
on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of
the terms on our part, whereon we are made partakers of it.
Nor is the constitution of these terms, an eff"ect of the death of
Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign
grace and wisdom of God. The things themselves as bestow-
ed on us, communicated to us, wrought in us by grace, are all
of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of
them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act
of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. " God so loved the world
as to send his only begotten son" to die, not that faith and re-
pentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect
might believe, and that all that believe " might not perish, but
have life everlasting." But yet it is gratited that the constitution
of these terms of the covenant respects the federal transaction
between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to
the praise of the glory of God's grace; and so although their
constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without
respect to it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of
God's making the new covenant, was the same with that of
giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose,
counsel, goodness, grace and love of God, as it is every where
expressed in the Scripture.
4thly, The covenant may be considered as to the actual ap-
plication of the grace, benefit and privileges of it to any per-
sons, whereby they are made real partakers of them, or are
taken into covenant with God. And this alone in the Scrip-
ture is intended by God's making a covenant with any. It is
not a general revelation, or declaration of the terms and nature
220 CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT,
of the covenant (which some call a universal conditional cove-
nant, on what grounds they know best, seeing the very formal
nature of making a covenant with any, includes the actual ac-
ceptation of it, and participation of the benefits of it by them)
but a communication of the grace of it, accompanied with a
prescription of obedience, that is God's making his covenant
with any, as all instances of it in the Scripture declare.
It may be therefore inquired, what respect the covenant of
grace has to the death of Christ, or what influence it has
upon it.
I answer, supposing what is spoken of his being a surety
thereof, it has a threefold respect thereto.
1. In that the covenant, as the grace and glory of it were
prepared in the counsel of God, as the terms of it were fixed
in the covenant of the Mediator, and as it was declared in the
promise, was confirmed, ratified, and made irrevocable there-
by. This our Apostle insists upon at large, Heb. ix. 15 — 20.
And he compares his blood in his death and sacrifice of himself,
to the sacrifices and their blood whereby the old covenant was
confirmed, purified, dedicated or established, ver. 18, 19. Now
these sacrifices did not procure that covenant, or prevail with
God to enter into it ; but only ratified and confirmed it; and
this was done in the new covenant by the blood of Christ.
2. He thereby underwent and performed all that which in
the righteousness and wisdom of God was required, that the
eflects, fruits, benefits and grace, intended, designed, and pre-
pared in the new covenant might be effectually accomplished,
and communicated to sinners. Hence although he procured
not the covenant for us by his death, yet he was in his person,
mediation, life and death, the only cause and means whereby
the whole grace of the covenant is made efl'ectual to us. For,
3. All the benefits of it were procured by him; that is, all the
grace, mercy, privileges and glory that God has prepared in the
counsel of his will, that were fixed as to the way of this com-
munication in the covenant of the Mediator, and proposed in
the promises of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his
death; and effectually communicated or applied to all the co-
venanters by virtue thereof, with others of his mediatory acts.
And this is much more an eminent procuring of the new cove-
nant, than what is pretended about the procurement of its terms
and conditions. For if he should have procured no more but
this, if we owe this only to his mediation, that God would there-
on, or did grant and establish this rule, law, and promise, that
CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENANT. 221
whoever believed should be saved, it were possible that no one
should be saved thereby; yea, if he did no more, considering
our state and condition, it was impossible that any one should
be saved.
To give the sum of these things, it is inquired with respect
to which of these considerations of the new covenant, it is
affirmed that it was procured by the death of Christ. If it be
said, that it is with respect to the actual communication of all
the grace and glory prepared in the covenant, and proposed to
us in the promises of it, it is most true. All the grace and
glory promised in the covenant was purchased for the church
by Jesus Christ, In this sense by his death he procured the new
covenant. This the whole Scripture from the beginning of it
in the first promise to the end of it, bears witness lo. For it is
in him alone that "God blesses us with all spiritual blessings
in heavenly things." Let all the good things that are men-
tioned or promised in the covenant expressly, or by just conse-
quence, be summed up, and it will be no hard matter to de-
monstrate concerning them all, and that both jointly and seve-
rally, that they were all procured for us by the obedience and
death of Christ.
But this is not that which is intended. For most of this
opinion deny that the grace of ihe covenant in conversion to
God, the remission of sins, sanctification, justification, adoption
and the like, are the effects or procurements of the death of
Christ. And on the other hand they declare, that it is God's
making of the covenant which they intend: that is, the con-
trivance of the terms and conditions of it, with their pro-
posal to mankind for their recovery. But herein there is ovbiv
vytii. For
1. The Lord Christ himself, and the whole work of his me-
diation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation
of lost sinners, is the first and principal promise of the covenant.
So his exliibition in the flesli, his work of mediation therein
with our deliverance thereby, was the subject of that first pro-
mise, which virtually contained this whole covenant. So he
was of the renovation of it to Abraham when it was solemnly
confirmed by the oath of God, Gal. iii. 16, 17. And Christ
did not by his death procure the promise of his death, nor of
his exhibition in the flesh, or his coming into the world, that
he might die.
2. The making of this covenant is every where in the Scrip-
ture ascribed (as is also the sending of Christ himself to die)
19*
222
CAUSES OF THE NEW COVENAINT.
to the love, grace and wisdom of God alone; no where to the
death of Christ, as the actual communication of all grace and
glory is. Let all the places be considered, where either the
giving of the promise, the sending of Christ, or the making of
the covenant is mentioned, either expressly or virtually, and
in none of them are they assigned to any other cause, but the
grace, love, and wisdom of God alone, all to be made effectual
to us, by the mediation of Christ.
3. The assignation of the sole end of the death of Christ to
be the procurement of the new covenant in the sense contend-
ed for, really makes void all the virtue of the death of Christ
and of the covenant itself. For (1) the covenant which they
intend, is nothing but- the constitution and proposal of new
terms and conditions for life and salvation to all men. Now
whereas the acceptance and accomplishment of these condi-
tions, depend upon the wills of men no way determined by ef-
fectual grace, it was possible that notwithstanding all Christ
did by his death, yet no one sinner might be saved thereby,
but that the whole end and design of God therein might be
frustrated. (2) Whereas the substantial advantage of these
conditions lies herein, that God will now for the sake of Christ,
accept of an obedience, inferior to that required in the law, and
so as that the grace of Christ does not raise up all things to a
conformity and compliance with the holiness and will of God
declared therein, but accommodate all things to our present
condition, nothing can be invented more dishonourable to
Christ and the gospel. For what does it else but make Christ
the minister of sin, in disanulling the holiness that the law re-
quires, or the obligation of the law to it, without any provision
of what might answer, or come into the room of it, but that
which is incomparably less worthy. Nor is it consistent with
divine wisdom, goodness and immutability, to appoint mankind
a law of obedience, and cast them all under the severest penal-
ty upon the transgression of it, when he could in justice and
honour, have given them such a law of obedience, whose ob-
servance might consist with many failings and sins. For if he
have done that now, he could have done so before, and how
far this reflects on the irlory of the divine properties, might be
easily manifested. Neither does this fond imagination com-
ply with those testimonies of Scripture, that the Lord Christ
" came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it," that he is the
end of the law, and that by faith the law is not disanulled but
established.
CHRIST AND BELIEVERS ONE MYSTICAL PERSON. 223
Lastly, the Lord Christ was the mediator and surety of the
new covenant, in and by whom it was ratified, confirmed and
established; and therefore by him the constitution of it was
not procured. For all the acts of his office belong to that me-
diation; and it cannot be well apprehended how any act of
mediation for the establishment of the covenant and rendering
it eff'ectual, should procure it,.
But to return from this digression ; that, wherein all the prece-
dent causes of the union between Christ and behevers, whence
they become one mystical person, centre, and whereby they
are rendered a complete foundation of the imputation of their
sins to him, and of his righteousness to them, is the commu-
nication of his Spirit, the same Spirit that dwelleth in him, to
them, to abide in, to animate and guide the whole mystical
body and all its members. But this has of late been so much
spoken to, that I shall do no more but mention it.
On the considerations insisted on, whereby the Lord Christ
became one mystical person with the church, or bare the per-
son of the church in what he did as mediator, in the holy, wise
disposal of God as the author of the law, the supreme rector
or governor of all mankind, as to their temporal and eternal
concernments, and by his own consent, the sins of all the elect
were imputed to him. This, having been the faith and language
of the Church in all ages, and that derived from and founded
in express testimonies of Scripture, with all the promises and
presignations of his exhibition in the flesh from the beginning,
cannot now with any modesty be expressly denied. Wherefore
the Socinians themselves grant that our sins may be said to be
imputed to Christ, and he to undergo the punishment of them,
so far as that all things which befel him evil and afliictive in
this life, with the death which he underwent, were occasioned
by our sins. For had not we sinned, there had been no need
of, nor occasion for his suffering. But notwiihstanduig this
concession they expressly deny his satisfaction, or that properly
he underwent the punishment due to our sins; wherein they
deny also all imputation of them to him. Others say that
our sins were imputed to him, quoad r e at uvi p cense, ViSio the
guilt of the punishment, but not quoad reatum culpse, as to
the guilt of the fault. But I must acknowledge that to me this
distinction gives inanem sine mente sontcm, an empty un-
meaning sound. The substance of it is much insisted on by
Feuardentius, Dialog. 5. pag. 467. And he is followed by
others. That which he would prove by it, is, that the Lord
i
224
CONSEdUENCES OF CHRIST S BEING ONE
Christ did not present himself before the throne of God,"wilh
the burden of our sins upon him, so as to answer to the justice
of God for them. Whereas therefore reatus, or guiU, may sig-
nify either dignitutem pcznse or ohligalionem ad pcenam, as
Bellarmine distinguishes, de Amiss. Grat. lib. 7. cap. 7. with
respect to Christ, the latter only is to be admitted. And the
main argument he and others insist upon, is this; that if our
sins be imputed to Christ, as to the guilt of the fault, as they
speak, then he must be polluted with them, and thence be de-
nominated a sinner in every kind. And this would be true, if
our sins could be communicated to Christ by transfusion, so as
to be his inherently and subjectively. But their being so only
by imputation gives no countenance to any such pretence.
However there is a notion of legal uncleanness, where there is
no inherent defilement. So the priest who offered the red heifer
to make atonement, and he that burned her, were said to be
" unclean," Numb. xix. 7, 8. But hereon they say, that Christ
died and suffered upon the special command of God, not that
his death and suffering were any way due upon the account of
our sins, or required in justice; which is utterly to overthrow
the satisfaction of Christ.
Wherefore the design of this distinction, is to deny the impu-
tation of the guilt of our sins to Christ; and then in what toler-
able setise they can be said to be imputed to him, I cannot un-
derstand. But we are not tied up to arbitrary distinctions, and
the sense that any are pleased to impose on the terms of them.
I shall therefore first inquire into the meaning of these words,
guilt and guilty, wherebj' we may be able to judge of what it
is, which in this distinction is intended.
The Hebrews have no other word to signify guilt or guilty
but Dii-N. And this they use both for sin, the guilt of it, the jjun-
ishment due to it, and a sacrifice for it. Speaking of the guilt
of blood, they use not any word to signify guilt, but only say ^''c:"'
it is " blood to him." So David prays " deliver me a^mn from
blood," which we render " blood-guiltiness," Psal. li. 14. And
this was because by the constitution of God, he that was guilty
of blood, was to die by the hand of the magistrate, or of God
himself But o'^^i Jischam is no where used for guilt, but it
signifies the relation of the sin intended to punishment. And
other significations of it will be in vain sought for in the Old
Testament.
In the New Testament, he that is guilty, is said to be vitohixo^,
Rom. iii. 19, that is, obnoxious to judgment or vengeance for
MYSTICAL PERSON WITH THE CHURCH.
225
sin; one that -iy Svxr; ^r;v ovx itaasv, as they speak, Acts xxviii. 4,
whom vengeance will not sufl'er to go unpunished. And ivoxou
1 Cor. xi. 27, a word of the same signification. Once by oipsaco,
Matth. xxiii. IS, to owe, to be indebted to justice. To be ob-
noxious, liable to justice, vengeance, punishment for sin, is to
be guilty.
Hens, guilty, in (he Latin, is of a large signification. He who
is crimiyii obnoxins, o\' pcenx propter crimen, or voti debitor,
ox proniissi, or officii ex sponsione, is called reus. Especially
every sponsor or surety, is reus in the law. Cum servus pe-
cuniani pro libertute pactus est, et ob eani rem., reum dederit,
(that is, spoiisorem, exproynissorem) qiiamvis servus ab alio
97ia?iumissus est, reus tamen obligabitur. He is reus who
engages himself for any other, as to the matter of his engage-
ment. And the same is the use of the word in the best Latin
authors. Opportuna loca dividend a Prefect is esse ac suse
quisque partis tutandse reus sit. Liv. de Bello Punic, lib. 5.
" That every captain should so take care of the station commit-
ted to him, as that if any thing happened amiss, it should be
imputed to him." And the same author again, at quicunque
aut propinquitate aut affinitate regiam contigissent, alienx
culpse rei trucidarentur, " should be guilty of the fault of an-
other," (by imputation) "and suffer for it." So that in the
Latin tongue he is reus, who for himself or any other is ob-
noxious to punishment or payment.
Reatus is a word of late admission into the Latin tongue,
and was formed oi reus. So Quintilian informs us in his dis-
course on the use of obsolete and new words, lib. 8. cap. 3.
Quse Vetera nunc sunt, fuerunt olim nova; qusedam in icsu
perquam recentia. Messala primus re.atum, munerarium
t/iugustus dixerunt; to which lie adds piratica, musica, and
some others then newly come into use. But reatus at its first
invention was of no such signification as it is now applied to.
I mention it only to show, that we have no reason to be
obliged to men's arbitrary use of words. Some lawyers first
used ii, pro crimine, a fault, exposing to punishment. But the
original invention of it continued by long use, was to express
the outward state and condition of him who was reus, after he
was first charged in a cause criminal, before he was acquitted
or condemned. Those among the Romans who were made
rei by any public accusation, betook themselves to a poor,
squalid habit, a sorrowful countenance, suffering their hair and
beards to go undressed; hereby on custom and usage, the people
226 CONSEQUENCES OF CHRISt's BEING ONE
who were to judge on their cause, were inclined to compassion.
And Milo furthered his sentence of banishment, because he
would not submit to this custom which iiad such an appear-
ance of pusillanimity and baseness of spirit. This state of sor-
row and trouble so expressed, they called reatus and nothing
else. It came afterwards to denote their state who were com-
mitted to custody in order to their trial, when the government
ceased to be popular, wiierein alone the other artifice was of
use. And if this word be of any use in our present argument,
it is to express the state of men after conviction of sin, before
their justification. That is their reatus, the condition wherein
the proudest of them cannot avoid to express their inward sor-
row and anxiety of mind, by some outward evidences of them.
Beyond this we are not obliged by the use of this word, but
must consider tiie thing itself which now we intend to express
thereby.
Guilt, in. the Scripture, is the respect of sin to the sanction
of the Law, whereby the sinner becomes obnoxious to punish-
ment. And to be guilty is to be vTiobixo^ tu> ®iu, liable to pun-
ishment for sin, from God, as the supreme Lawgiver and Judge
of all. And so guilt or reatus is well defined to be obligatio ad
poenam, propter culpam, aut admissam in se, aut impxitatam,
juste aut injuste. For so Bathsheba says to David, that she and
her son Solomon should be □■•Nan " sinners,'' that is, be esteem-
ed guilty or liable to punishment for some evil laid to their
charge, 1 Kings i. 21. And the distinction o{ dignitas pcense,
and obligatio ad posnani, is but the same thing in divers words.
For both do but express the relation of sin to the sanction of
the law, or if they may be conceived to differ, yet are they in-
separable, for there can be no obligatio ad pcenam, where
there is no dignitas poense.
Much less is there any thing of weight in the distinction of
reatus culpx and reatus pcense. For this reatus culpas is no-
thing but dignitas pcense propter culpani. Sin has other consi-
derations, namely, its formal nature, as it is a transgression of
the law; and the stain or filth that it brings upon the soul; but
the guilt of it is nothing but its respect to punishment from
the sanction of the law. And so indeed reatus culpse, is rea-
tus poense; the guilt of sin, is its desert of punishment. And
where there is not this reatus culpse, there can be wo poena, no
punishment properly so called. For poena is vindicta noxse,
the revenge due to sin. So therefore there can be no punish-
ment, nor reatus poense, the guilt of it, but where there is rea-
MYSTICAL PERSON WITH THE CHURCH. 227
tun ellipse, or sin considered with its guilt. And the reatus
poense, that may be supposed without the guilt of sin, is nothing
but that obnoxionsness to afflictive evil on the occasion of sin,
which the Socinians admit with respect to the suffering of
Christ, and yet execrate his satisfaction.
And if this distinction should be apprehended to be of rea-
tus, from its formal respect to sin and punishment, it must in
both parts of the distinction be of the same signification, other-
wise there is an equivocation in the subject of it. But reatus
pcenae is a liableiiess, an obnoxionsness to punishment, accord-
ing to the sentence of the law; that whereby a sinner becomes
irtoStzoj tut 0£aj. And then reatus culpai must be an obnoxions-
ness to sin, which is uncouth. There is therefore no imputa-
tion of sin, where there is no imputation of its guilt. For the
guilt of punishment, which is not its respect to the desert of
sin, is a plain fiction; there is no such thing in rerum natura.
There is no guilt of sin, but its relation to punishment.
That therefore which we affirm herein is; that our sins were
so transferred to Christ, that thereby he bicame a"^»< vnohixo^
tu> 0£w, i?ez«5, responsible to God, and obnoxious to punishment
in the justice of God for them. He was alienee culpse reus,
perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or
our obnoxionsness to punishment for sin. And so he may be,
and may be said to be the greatest debtor in the world who
never borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if
he become surety for the greatest debt of others. So Paul be-
came a debtor to Philemon, upon his undertaking for Onesimus,
who before owed him nothing.
And two things concurred to this imputation of sin to Christ.
(1) The act of God imputing it. (2) Tlie voluntary act of
Christ himself in the undertaking of it, or admitting of the
charge.
1. The act of God in this imputation of the guilt of our sins
to Christ, is expressed by his laying all our iniquities upon him,
making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, and the like.
For (1) as the supreme governor, lawgiver, and judge of all,
to whom it belonged to take care that his holy law was ob-
served, or the offenders punished, he admitted upon the trans-
gression of it, the sponsion and suretyship of Christ to answer
for the sins of men, Heb. x. 5 — 7. (2) In order to this end, he
made him under the law, or gave the law power over him, to
demand of him, and inflict on him the penalty which was due
to the sins of them for whom he undertook, Gal. iii. 13; iv. 4,
228 CONSECIUENCES OF CHRISt's BEING ONE
5, (3) For the declaration of the righteousness of God in this
setting forth of Christ to be a propitiation, and to bear our ini-
quities, the guilt of our sins was transferred to him in an act of
the righteous judgment of God, accepting and esteeming of him
as the guilty person; as it is with public sureties in every case.
2. The Lord Christ's voluntary snsception of the state and
condition of a surety, or undertaker for the church, to appear
before the throne of God's justice for them, to answer whatever
was laid to their charge, was required hereto. And this he did
absolutely. There was a concurrence of his own will in and
to all those divine acts whereby he and the Church were con-
stituted one mystical' person. And of his own love and grace
did he as our surety stand in our stead before God, when he
made inquisition for sin; he took it on himself, as to the pun-
ishment which it deserved. Hence it became just and right-
eous that he should suffer, *'the just for the unjust that he
miglit bring us unto God." For if this be not so, I desire to
know what is become of the guilt of the sins of believers; if it
were not transferred to Christ, it remains still upon themselves,
or it is nothing. It will be said that guilt is taken away by the
free pardon of sin. But if so, there was no need of punishment
for it at all; which is indeed what the Socinians plead, but by
others is not admitted. For if punishment be not for guilt, it
is not punishment.
But it is fiercely objected against what we have asserted,
that if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ, then was he
constituted a sinner thereby; for it is the guilt of sin that makes
any one to be truly a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmine; lib,
2. de Justificat, not for its own sake, but to disprove the imputa-
tion of his righteousness to us, as it is continued by others v/ith
the same design. For, saith he, " if we be made righteous,
and the children of God through the imputation of the right-
eousness of Christ, then was he made a sinner, et quod horret
animus co git are, films Diaboli, by the imputation of the guilt
of our sins, or our unrighteousness to him," And the same ob-
jection is pressed by others, with instances of consequences,
which for many reasons I heartily wish had been forborne.
But I answer,
1. Nothing is more absolutely true, nothing is more sacredly
or assuredly believed by us, than, that nothing which Christ
did or suffered, nothing that he undertook or underwent, did or
could constitute him, subjectively, inherently, and thereon per-
sonally a sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the
MYSTICAL PERSON WITH THE CHURCH. 229
guilt or blame of other men's faults, to be aliensR culpse reus,
makes no man a sinner, unless he did unwisely or irregularly
undertake it. But that Christ should admit of any thing of sin
in himself, as it is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical
union, so it would render him unmeet for all other duties of his
office, Heb. vii. 25,26. And I confess it has always seemed
scandalous to me, that Socinus, Crellius, and Grotius grant
that in some sense Christ offered for his own sins, and would
prove it from that very place wherein it is positively denied,
Heb. vii. 27. This ought to be sacredly fixed, and not a word
used, nor thought entertained of any possibility of the contrary,
upon any supposition whatever.
2. None ever dreamed of a transfusion or propagation of sin
from us to Christ, such as there was from Adam to us. For
Adam was a common person to us, we are not so to Christ;
yea he is so to us; and the imputation of our sins to him, is a
singular act of divine dispensation, which no evil consequence
can ensue upon.
3. To imagine such an imputation of our sins to Christ, as
that thereon they should cease to be our sins, and become his
absolutely, is to overthrow that which is affirmed. For on that
supposition Christ would not suffer for our sins, for they ceased
to be ours, antecedently to his suffering. But the guilt of them
was so transferred to him, that through his suffering for it, it
might be pardoned to us.
These things being premised, I say,
1. There is in sin a transgression of the preceptive part of
the law, and there is an obnoxiousness to the punishment from
the sanction of it. It is the first that gives sin its formal nature,
and where that is not subjectively, no person can be constituted
formally a sinner. However any one may be so denominated
as to some certain end or purpose, yet without this, formally a
sinner none can be, whatever be imputed to him. And where
that is, no non-imputation of sin as to punishment, can free the
person in whom it is, from being formally a sinner. When
Bathsheba told David that she and her son Solomon should be
Q^Nan "sinners," by having crimes laid to their charge; and
when Judah told Jacob, that he would be a " sinner before him
always" on account of any evil that befel Benjamin, (it should
be imputed to him) yet neither of them could thereby be con-
stituted a sinner formally. And on the other hand, when Shimei
desired David not to impute sin to him, whereby he escaped
present punishment, yet did not that non-imputation free him
20
230 CONSEQUENCES OF CHRISt's BEING ONE
formally from being a sinner. Wherefore sin under this con-
sideration as a transgression of the preceptive part of the law,
cannot be communicated from one to another, unless it be by
the propagation of a vitiated principle or habit. But yet neither
so will the personal sin of one as inherent in him, ever come to
be the personal sin of another. Adam has upon his personal
sin communicated a vicious, depraved, and corrupted nature to
all his posterity; and besides, the guilt of his actual sin is im-
puted to them, as if it had been committed by every one of
them. But yet his particular personal sin, neither ever did,
nor ever could become the personal sin of anyone of them, any
otherwise than by the imputation of its guilt to them. Where-
fore our sins neither are, nor can be so imputed to Christ, as
that they should become subjectively his, as they are a trans-
gression of the preceptive part of the law. A physical transla-
tion or transfusion of sin is in this case naturally and spiritually
impossible; and yet on a supposition thereof alone, do the hor-
rid consequences mentioned depend. Bat the guilt of sin is
an external respect of it, with regard to the sanction of the law
only. This is separable from sin, and if it were not so, no one
sinner could either be pardoned or saved. It may therefore be
made another's by imputation, and yet that other not rendered
formally a sinner thereby. This was that which was imputed
to Christ, whereby he was rendered obnoxious to the curse
of the law. For it was impossible that the law should pro-
nounce any accursed but the guilty; nor would do so, Deut.
xxvii. 26.
2. There is a great difference between the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ to us, and the imputation of our sins to
Christ: so as that he cannot in the same manner be said to be
made a sinner by the one, as we are made righteous by the
other. For our sin was imputed to Christ only, as he was our
surety for a time; to this end, that he might take it away, de-
stroy it and abolish it. It was never miputed to him, so as to
make any alteration absolutely in his personal state and condi-
tion. But his righteousness is imputed to us, to abide with us,
to be ours always, and to make a total change in our state and
condition as to our relation to God. Our sin was imputed to
him, only for a season, not absolutely, but as he was a surety,
and to the special end of destroying it; and taken on him, on
this condition that his righteousness should be made ours for
ever. All things are otherwise in the imputation of his right-
eousness to us, which respects us absolutely, and not under
MYSTICAL PERSON WITH THE CHURCH. 231
a temporary capacity, abides with us for ever, changes our
state and relation to God, and is an effect of superabounding
grace.
But it will be said, that if our sins as to the guilt of them
were imputed to Christ, then God must hate Christ; for he
hateth the guilty. I know not well how I come to mention
these things, which indeed I look upon as cavils, such as men
may multiply if they please, against any part of the mysteries
of the gospel. But seeing it is mentioned, it may be spoken to.
And
(1) It is certain that the Lord Christ's taking on him the guilt
of our sins, was a high act of obedience to God, Heb. x. 5, 6;
and for which the Father loved him, John x. 17, 18. There
was therefore no reason why God should hate Christ, for his
taking on him our debt and the payment of it, in an act of the
highest obedience to his will. (2) God in this matter is consider-
ed as a rector, ruler and judge. Now it is not required of the se-
verest judge, that as a judge he should hate the guilty person, no,
although he be guilty originally by inhesion and not by impu-
tation. As such, he has no more to do, but consider the guilt,
and pronounce the sentence of punishment. But (3) suppose
a person out of an heroic generosity of mind should become an
Avti-^vxoi for another, for his friend, for a good man, so as to
answer for him with his life, as Judah undertook to be for Ben-
jamin as to his liberty, which when a man has lost, he is civil-
ly dead, and capite diminiitus; — would the most cruel tyrant
under heaven that should take away his life, in that case, hate
him? would he not rather admire his worth and virtue? As
such an one it was that Christ suffered, and no otherwise. (4)
All the force of this exception depends on the ambiguity of the
word hate. For it may signify either an aversion or detesta-
tion of mind, or only a will of punishing, as in God mostly it
does. In the first sense there was no ground why God should
hate Christ on this imputation of guilt to him; whereby he be-
came non proprix sed aliense culpse reus. Sin inherent ren-
ders the soul polluted, abominable, and the only object of di-
vine aversion. But for him who was perfectly innocent, holy,
harmless, undefiled in himself, who did no sin, neither was
there guile found in his mouth, to take upon him the guilt of
others' sins, thereby to comply with and accomplish the design
of God for the manifestation of his glory and infinite wisdom,
grace, goodness, mercy, and righteousness, to the certain expia-
tion and destruction of sin, nothing could render him more glo-
232 CONSEQUENCES OF CHRISt's BEING ONE
rious and lovely in the sight of God or man. But for a will of
punishing in God, where sin is imputed, none can deny it, but
they must therewith openly disavow the satisfaction of Christ.
The heads of some few of those arguments wherewith the
truth we have asserted is confirmed, shall close this discourse.
1. Unless the guilt of sin was imputed to Christ, sin was not
imputed to him in any sense; for the punishment of sin is not
sin; nor can those who are otherwise minded, declare what it
is of sin, that is imputed. But the Scripture is plain, that "God
laid on him the iniquity of us all;" and made him to be sin for
us, which could not otherwise be but by imputation.
2. There can be no punishment but with respect to the guilt
of sin personally contracted, or imputed. It is guilt alone that
gives what is materially evil and afflictive the formal nature of
punishment, and nothing else. And therefore those who under-
stand full well the harmony of things and opinions, and are
free to express their minds, constantly declare, that if one of
these be denied, the other must be so also ; and if one be admit-
ted they must both be so. If guilt was not imputed to Christ,
he could not, as they plead well enough, undergo the punish-
ment of sin; much he might do and suffer on the occasion of
sin, but undergo the punishment due to sin he could not. And
if it should be granted that the guilt of sin was imputed to him,
they will not deny but that he underwent the punishment of it;
and if he underwent the punishment of it, they will not deny
but that the guilt of it was imputed to him; for these things are
inseparably related.
3. Christ was made a "curse for us," the curse of the law;
as is expressly declared. Gal. iii. 13, 14. But the curse of the
law respects the guilt of sin only; so that where that is not,
it cannot take place in any sense, and where that is, it insepa-
rably attends it, Deut. xxvii. 26,
4. The express testimonies of the Scripture to this purpose
cannot be evaded, without an open wresting of their words and
sense. So God is said to make all our iniquities to meet upon
him; and he bare them on him as his burden, for so the word
signifies, Isa. liii. 6. " God hath laid on him the iniquity," that
is, the guilt " of us all," ver. 11;" and their sin (or guilt) shall
he bear." For that is the intendment of vv, where joined with
any other word that denotes sin as it is in those places; Psal.
xxxii. 5; " thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin," that is, the
guilt of it, which is that alone that is taken away by pardon.
So we read that " his soul was made an offering for the guilt of
MYSTICAL PERSON WITH THE CHURCH. 233
sin," " that he was made sin," " that sin was condemned in his
flesh," &c.
5. This was represented in all the sacrifices of old, especially
the great anniversary on the day of expiation, with the ordi-
nance of the scape goat, as has been before declared.
6. Without a supposition hereof it cannot be understood, how
the Lord Christ should be our Avu^i^vxoi or sutfer avtv o^^wi/, m.
our stead, unless we will admit the exposition of Mr. Ho, a late ^
writer, who reckoning up how many things the Lord Christ did
in our stead, adds as the sense thereof, that is " to bestead us;"
than which if he can invent any thing more fond and sense-
less, he has a singular faculty in such an employment.
CHAPTER IX.
THE FORMAL CAUSK OF JUSTIFICATION; OR, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS ON
ACCOUNT OF WHICH BELIEVERS ARE JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD. OBJEC-
TIONS ANSWERED,
The principal differences about the doctrine of justification are
reducible to three heads, (1) The nature of it; namely, whether
it consists in an internal change of the person justified by the
infusion of a habit of inherent grace or righteousness ; or whether
it be a forensic act, in the judging, esteeming, declaring, and
pronouncing such a person to be righteous, thereon absolving
him from all his sins, giving to him right and title to life. Here-
in we have to do only with those of the Church of Rome; all
others, both Protestants and Socinians, being agreed on the
forensic sense of the word, and the nature of the thing signi-
fied thereby. And this I have already spoken to, so far as our
present design requires, and that I hope with such evidence of
truth, as cannot well be gainsaid. Nor may it be supposed
that we have too long insisted thereon, as an opinion which is
obsolete, and long since sutiiciently confuted. I think much
otherwise, and that those who avoid the Romanists in these
controversies, will give a greater appearance of fear, than of
contempt. For when all is done, if free justification through
the blood of Christ and the imputation ot his righteousness, be
not able to preserve its station, in the minds of men, the Popish
doctrine of justification must and will return upon the world,
20*
234 THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION.
with all the concomitants and consequences of it. Whilst any
knowledge of the law or gospel is continued amongst us, the
consciences of men will at one time or other, living or dying, be
really affected with a sense of sin, as to its guilt and danger.
Hence that trouble and those disquietments of mind will ensue,
which will force men, be they never so unwilling, to seek after
some relief and satisfaction. And what will not men attempt,
who are reduced to the condition expressed? Micah vi. 7, 8.
Wherefore in this case, if the true and only relief of distressed
consciences of sinners who are weary and heavy laden, be hid
from their eyes; if they have no apprehension of, nor trust in that
which alone they may oppose to the sentence of the law, and
interpose between God's justice and their souls, wherein they
may take shelter from the storms of that wrath which abides
on them that believe not; they will betake themselves to any
thing which confidently tenders them present ease and relief.
Hence many persons living all their days in an ignorance of
the righteousness of God, are oftentimes on their sick beds, and
in their dying hours, proselyted to a confidence in the ways of
rest and peace, which the Romanists impose upon them. For
such seasons of advantage do they wait for, to the reputation
as they suppose of their own zeal, in truth to the scandal of the
Christian religion. But finding at any time the consciences of
men under disquietments, and ignorant of, or disbelieving that
heavenly relief which is provided in the gospel, they are ready
with their applications and medicines, having on them pretend-
ed approbations of the experience of many ages, and an innu-
merable company of devout souls in them. Such is their doc-
trine of justification, with the addition of those other ingredients
of confession, absolution, penances or commutations, aids from
saints and angels, especially the blessed Virgin, all warmed by
the fire of purgatory, and confidently administered to persons,
sick of ignorance, darkness and sin. And let none please them-
selves in the contempt of these things. If the truth concerning
evangelical justification be once disbelieved among us, or oblit-
erated by any artifices, out of the minds of men, to these things
at one time or other, they must and will betake themselves.
For the new schemes and projections of the justification which
some at present would supply us with, are no way suited, nor
able to give relief or satisfaction to a conscience really troubled
for sin, and seriously inquiring how it may have rest and peace
with God. I shall take the boldness therefore to say, whoever
be offended at it, that if we lose the ancient doctrine of justifi-
IsSnt
■•>^"
THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION. 235
cation through faith in the blood of Christ, and the imputation
of his righteousness to us, public profession of religion will
quickly issue in popery or atheism, or at least in what is the
next door to it.
The second principal controversy is about the formal cause
of justification, as it is expressed and stated by those of the
Roman church. And under these terms some Protestant di-
vines have consented to debate the matter in difference. I shall
not interpose into a strife of words. So the Romanists will call
that which we inquire after. Some of ours say, the righteous-
ness of Christ imputed; some, the imputation of the righteous-
ness of Christ, is the formal cause of our justification; some,
that there is no formal cause of justification, but this is that
which supplies the place and use of a formal cause, which is
the righteousness of Christ. In none of these things will I con-
cern myself, though I judge what was mentioned in the last
place, to be most proper and significant.
The substance of the inquiry wherein alone we are concern-
ed is, what is that righteousness whereby, and wherewith, a
believing sinner is justified before God; or whereon he is ac-
cepted with God, has his sins pardoned, is received into grace
and favour, and has a title given him to the heavenly inherit-
ance ? I shall no otherwise propose this inquiry, as knowing
that it contains the substance of what convinced sinners look
after in and by the gospel.
And herein it is agreed by all, the Socinians only excepted,
that the primary or procuring cause of the pardon of our sins,
and acceptance with God, is the satisfaction and merit of Christ.
Howbeit it cannot be denied, but that some retaining the names
of them, seem to renounce or disbelieve the things themselves.
But we need not to take any notice thereof, until they are free
more plainly to express their minds. But as concerning the
righteousness itself inquired after, there seems to be a difference
among them, who yet all deny it to be the righteousness of
Christ imputed to us. For those of the Roman church plainly
say, that upon the infusion of a habit of grace, with the expul-
sion of sin and the renovation of our natures thereby, which
they call the first justification, we are actually justified before
God, by our own works of righteousness. Hereon they dispute
about the merit and satifactoriness of those works, with their
condignity of the reward of eternal life. Others as the Socinians
openly disclaim all merit in our works; only some, out of reve-
rence as I suppose, to the antiquity of the word, and under the
236 THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
shelter of the ambiguity of its signification, have faintly at-
tempted ail accommodation with it. But in the substance of
what they assent to this purpose, to the best of my understand-
ing, they are aU agreed. For what the Papists call Justitia
operum, " the righteousness of works," they call a personal
inherent evangelical righteousness, whereof we have spoken
before. And whereas the Papists say, that this righteousness
of works is not absolutely perfect, nor in itself able to justify us
in the sight of God, but owes all its worth and dignity for this
purpose to the merit of Christ, they affirm that this evangelical
righteousness is the condition whereon we enjoy the benefits
of the righteousness of Christ, in the pardon of our sins, and the
acceptance of our persons before God. But as to those who
will acknowledge no other righteousness wherewith we are
justified before God, the meaning is the same, whether we say
that on the condition of this righteousness we are made par-
takers of the benefits of the righteousness of Christ; or that
it is the righteousness of Christ which makes this righteousness
of ours accepted with God. But these things nmst afterwards
more particularly be inquired into.
3. The third inquiry wherein there is not an agreement in
this matter is, upon a supposition of a necessity, that he who is
to be justified, should one way or other be interested in the
righteousness of Christ, what it is that on our part is required
thereto. This some say to be faith alone, others faith and
works also, and that in the same kind of necessity and use.
What we at present undertake to consider, is the second thing
proposed. And indeed, herein lies the substance of the whole
controversy about our justification before God, upon the deter-
mination and stating whereof, the determination of all other
incident questions depends.
This therefore is that which herein I aflirm : The righteous-
ness of Christ (in his obedience and suffering for us) imputed
to believers, as they arc united to him l)y his Spirit, is that
righteousness ivhcreon they are justified before God, on ac-
count whereof their sins are pardoned, and a right is grant-
ed them to the heavenly inheritance.
This position is such as wherein the substance of that doc-
trine in this important article of evangelical truth which we
plead for, is plauily and fully expressed. And I have chosen
the rather thus to express it, because it is that thesis wherein
the learned Davenant laid down that common doctrine of the
reformed churches whose defence he undertook. This is the
THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION. 237
shield of truth in the whole cause of justification, which whilst
it is preserved safe, we need not trouble ourselves about the
differences that are among learned men, about the most proper
stating and declaration of some lesser concernments of it. This
is the refuge, the only refuge of distressed consciences, wherein
they may find rest and peace.
For the confirmation of this assertion, I shall do these three
things. (1) Reflect on what is needful to the explanation of it.
(2) Answer the most important general objections against it.
(3) Prove the truth of it by arguments and testimonies of the
Holy Scripture.
As to the first of these, or what is necessary to the explana-
tion of this assertion, it has been sufficiently spoken to in our
foregoing discourses. The heads of some things only shall at
present be called over.
1. The foundation of the imputation asserted is, union.
Hereof there are many grounds and causes as has been de-
clared. But that which we have immediate respect to as the
foundation of this imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ
and believers actually coalesce into one mystical person. This
is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting in him as the head of the
church in all fulness, and in all believers according to their
measure, whereby they become members of his mystical body.
That there is such an union between Christ and believers, is
the faith of the catholic Church, and has been so in all ages.
Those who seem in our days to deny it or question it, either
know not what they say, or their minds are influenced by the
doctrine of those who deny the divine persons of the Son, and
of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will
grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least,
that there is such a pecuhar ground for it, as is not to be ex-
emplified in any things natural or political among men.
2. The nature of imputation has been fully spoken to before,
and thereto I refer the reader for the understanding of what is
intended thereby.
3. That which is imputed is the righteousness of Christ; and
briefly I understand hereby his whole obedience to God in all
that he did and suffered for the church. This I say is imputed
to believers, so as to become^ their only righteousness before
God to the justification of life.
If beyond these things any expressions have been made use
of in the explanation of this truth, which have given occasion
to any differences or contests, although they may be true and
238 THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
defensible against objections, yet shall not I concern myself in
them. The substance of the truth as laid down, is that which
I have undertaken to defend, and where that is granted or
consented to, I will not contend with any about their way and
methods of its declaration, nor defend the terms and expres-
sions that have by any been made use of therein. For instance,
some have said, that " what Christ did and suffered, is so im-
puted to us, as that we are judged and esteemed in the sight of
God to have done or suffered ourselves in him." This I shall
not concern myself in. For although it may have a sound sense
given to it, and is used by some of the ancients, yet because
offence is taken at it, and the substance of the truth we plead
for is better otherwise expressed, it ought not to be contended
about. For we do not say that God judges or esteems that we
did and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suf-
fered, but only that he did it and suffered it in our stead.
Hereon God makes a grant and donation of it to believers
upon their believing, to their justification before him. And the
like may be said of many other expressions of the like nature.
These things being premised, I proceed to the consideration
of the general objections that are urged against the imputation
we plead for. And I shall insist only on some of the principal
of them, and whereinto all others may be resolved; for it were
endless to go over all that any man's invention can suggest to
him of this kind. And some general considerations we must
take along with us herein. As,
1. The doctrine of justification is a part, yea an eminent part
of the mystery of the gospel. It is no marvel therefore if it be
not so exposed to the common notions of reason, as some would
have It to be. There is more required to the true spiritual un-
derstanding of such mysteries; yea, unless we intend to re-
nounce the gospel, it must be asserted, that reason as it is cor-
rupted, and the mind of man destitute of divine supernatural
revelation, dishke every such truth, and rise up in enmity
against it. So the Scripture directly afiirms, Rom. viii. 7.
1 Cor. ii. 14.
2. Hence are the minds and inventions of men wonderfully
fertile in coining objections against evangelical truths, and
raising cavils against them. Seldom to this purpose do they
want an endless number of sophistical objections, which be-
cause they know no belter, they themselves judge unanswer-
able. For carnal reason being once set at liberty under the
false notion of truth, to act itself freely and boldly against spi-
THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION. 239
ritual mysteries, is subtle in its arguings, and pregnant in
its invention of them. How endless, for instance, are the
sophisms of the Socinians against the doctrine of the Trinity,
and how do they triumph in them as unanswerable. Under
the shelter of them they despise the force of the most evident
testimonies of the Scripture, and those muhiplied on all occa-
sions. In like manner they deal with the doctrine of the satis-
faction of Christ, as the Pelagians of old did with that of his
grace. Wherefore he that will be startled at the appearance
of subtle or plausible objections, against any gospel mysteries
that are plainly revealed, and sufficiently attested in the Scrip-
ture, is not likely to come to much stability in his profession of
them.
3. The most of the objections which are levied against the
truth in this cause, arise from the want of a due comprehen-
sion of the order of the work of God's grace, and of our com-
pliance therewith in a way of duty, as was before observed.
For they consist in opposing those things one to another as in-
consistent, which in their proper place and order are not only
consistent, but mutually subservient one to another; and are
found so in the experience of them that truly believe. Instances
hereof have been given before, and others will immediately
occur. Taking the consideration of these things with us, we
may see the origin of the objections, and of what force they are.
4. Let it be considered that the objections which are made
use of against the truth we assert, are all of them taken from
certain consequences, which as it is supposed, will ensue on
the admission of it. And as this is the only expedient to per-
petuate controversies, and make them endless, so to my best
observation I never yet met with any one, but that, to give an
appearance of force to the absurdity of the consequences from
whence he argues, he framed his suppositions, or the state of
the question, to the disadvantage of them whom he opposed; a
course of proceeding which I wonder good men are not either
weary, or ashamed of
1. It is objected, "that the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ overthrows all remission of sins on the part of God."
This is pleaded for by Socinus, and by others it is also made
use of A confident charge this seems to them who steadfastly
believe that without this imputation, there could be no remis-
sion of sin. But they say, that he who has a righteousness im-
puted to him that is absolutely perfect, so as to be made his
own, needs no pardon, has no sin that should be forgiven, nor
240 THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION.
can ever need forgiveness. But because this objection will
occur to us again in the vindication of one of our ensuing argu-
ments, I shall here briefly speak to it.
1. Grotius shall answer this objection ; he says,* " Whereas we
have said that Christ has procured two things for us, freedom
from punishment, and a reward; the ancient Church attributes
the former of them distinctly to his satisfaction, the latter to his
merit. Satisfaction consists in the transferring of sins, (from us
unto him;) merit, in the imputation to us of his most perfect obe-
dience performed for us." In his judgment the remission of
sins, and the imputation of righteousness, were as consistent as
the satisfaction and merit of Christ, as indeed they are.
2. Had we not been sinners, we should have had no need of
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to render us right-
eous before God. Being so, the first end for which it is im-
puted is the pardon of sin; without which we could not be
righteous by the imputation of the most perfect righteousness.
These things therefore are consistent, namely, that the satisfac-
tion of Christ should be imputed to us for the pardon of sin,
and the obedience of Christ be imputed to us, to render us right-
eous before God. And they are not only consistent, but neither
of them singly were sufficient to our justification.
2. It is pleaded by the same author and others, " that the im-
putation of the righteousness of Christ, overthrows all necessity
of repentance for sin, in order to the remission or pardon thereof,
yea renders it altogether needless. For what need has he of
repentance for sin, who by the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ, is esteemed completely just and righteous in the sight
of God? If Christ satisfied for all sins in the person of the
elect; if as our surety he paid all our debts, and if his right-
eousness be made ours before we repent, then is all repentance
needless." And these things are much enlarged on by the
same author in the place before mentioned.
Answer (1) It must be remembered, that we require evan-
gelical faith, in order of nature, antecedently to our justification
by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us, which
also is the condition of its continuation. Wherefore whatever
is necessary thereto, is in like manner required of us in order
to believing. Amongst these, there is a sorrow for sin, and a
* Cum duo nobis pcperisse Christum dixerimus, impunitatem et pr£emium,illud
satisfactioni, hoc merito Christ! dislincte tribuit vetus Ecclesia. Satisfactio con-
sistit in peccatorum translatione, meritum in pcrfcctissimEE obedientia) pro nobis
prsestitfB imputatione. Praefat. ad Lib. de Satisfact.
THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION,
241
repentance of it. For whosoever is convinced of sin in a due
manner, so as to be sensible of its evil and guilt, both as in its
own nature it is contrary to the preceptive part of the holy
law, and in the necessary consequences of it, in the wrath and
curse of God, cannot but be perplexed in his mind, that he has
involved himself therein. And that posture of mind will be
accompanied with shame, fear, sorrow, and other afflictive
passions. Hereon a resolution ensues, utterly to abstain from
it for the future, with sincere endeavours to that purpose,
issuing, if there be time and space for it, in reformation of life.
And in a sense of sin, sorrow for it, fear concerning it, absti-
nence from it, and reformation of life, a repentance true in its
kind consists. This repentance is usually called legal, because
its motives are principally taken from the law; but yet there
is moreover required to it that temporary faith of the gospel
which we have before described. And as it usually produces
great effects in the confession of sin, humiliation for it, and
change of life, as in Ahab and the Ninevites, so ordinarily it
precedes true saving faith, and justification thereby. Where-
fore the necessity hereof, is no way weakened by the doctrine
of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, yea it is
strengthened and made effectual thereby. For without it, in
the order of the gospel, an interest therein is not to be attained.
And this is that which in the Old Testament is so often proposed
as the means and conditions of turning away the judgments
and punishments threatened against sin. For it is true and
sincere in its kind; neither do the Socinians require any other
repentance to justification. For as they deny true evangelical
repentance in all the especial causes of it, so that which may
and does precede faith in order of nature, is all that they re-
quire. This objection therefore as managed by them, is a
causeless vain pretence.
3. Justifying faith includes in its nature the entire principle
of evangelical repentance, so that it is utterly impossible that
a man should be a true believer, and not at the same instant
of time be truly penitent. And therefore are they so fre-
quently conjoined in the Scripture as one simultaneous duty.
Yea the call of the gospel to repentance is a call to faith, act-
ing itself by repentance. So the sole reason of that call to re-
pentance which the forgiveness of sins is annexed to, (Acts ii.
38,) is the proposal of the promise which is the object of faith,
ver. 39. And those conceptions and affections which a man
has about sin, with a sorrow for it and repentance of it, upon
21
w
242 THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
a legal conviction, being enlivened and made evangelical by
the introduction of faith as a new principle of them, and giv-
ing new motives to them, become evangelical; so impossible is
it that faith should be without repentance. Wherefore al-
though the first act of faith, and its only proper exercise to
justification, respects the grace of God in Christ and the way
of salvation by him, as proposed in the promise of the gospel,
yet is not this conceived in order of time to precede its actings
in self-displicency, godly sorrow, and universal conversion
from sin to God; nor can it be so, seeing it virtually and radi-
cally contains all of them in itself. However therefore evan-
gelical repentance is not the condition of our justification, so
as to have any direct influence upon it; nor are we said any
where to be justified by repentance; nor is it conversant about
the proper object which alone the soul respects therein; nor is
a direct and immediate giving glory to God, on account of the
way and work of his wisdom and grace in Christ Jesus, but a
consequence thereof; nor is that reception of Christ which is
expressly required to our justification, and which alone is re-
quired thereto; yet is it, in the root, principle, and promptitude
of mind for its exercise, in every one that is justified, ihe7i
when he is justified. And it is peculiarly proposed with re-
spect to the forgiveness of sins, as that without which it is im-
possible we should have any true sense or comfort of it in our
souls; but it is not so as any part of that righteousness on the
consideration whereof our sins are pardoned, nor as that
whereby we have an interest therein. These things are plain
in the divine method of our justification, and the order of our
duty prescribed in the gospel; as also in the experience of
them that believe. Wherefore considering the necessity of
legal repentance to believing, with the sanctification of the
affections exercised therein by faith, whereby they are made
evangelical, and the nature of faith as including in it a princi-
ple of universal conversion to God, and especially of that re-
pentance, which has for its principal motive the love of God,
and of Jesus Christ, with the grace from thence communicated,
all which are supposed in the doctrine pleaded for, the neces-
sity of true repentance is immovably fixed on its proper foun-
dation.
3. As to what was said in the objection concerning Christ's
suffering in the person of the elect, I know not whether any
have used it or not, nor will I contend about it. He suffered
in their stead; which all sorts of writers ancient and modern
THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION. 243
SO express, " in his suffering he bare the person of the church."
The meaning is what was before declared. Christ and be-
lievers are one mystical person, one spiritually animated body,
head and members. This I suppose will not be denied; to do
so is to overthrow the church and the faith of it. Hence what
he did and suffered is imputed to them. And it is granted that
as the surety of the covenant he paid all our debts, or answer-
ed for all our faults; and that his righteousness is really com-
municated to us. Why then, say some, there is no need of re-
pentance, all is done for us already. But why so? why must
we assent to one part of the gospel to the exclusion of another?
Was it not free to God to appoint what way, method and order
he would, whereby these things should be communicated to
us? nay upon the supposition of the design of his wisdom and
grace, these two things were necessary;
1. That this righteousness of Christ should be communicated
to us, and be made ours in such a way and manner, as that he
himself might be glorified therein, seeing he has disposed all
things in this whole economy, " to the praise of the glory of
his grace," Ephes. i. 6. This was to be done by faith on our
part. It is so, it could be no otherwise. For that faith where-
by we are justified, is our giving to God the glory of his wis-
dom, grace and love. And whatever does so, is faith, and
nothing else is so.
2. That whereas our nature was so corrupted and depraved,
as that continuing in that state, it was not capable of a partici-
pation of the righteousness of Christ, or any benefit of it, to
the glory of God, and our own good, it was in like manner
necessary that it should be renewed and changed. And unless
it were so, the design of God in the mediation of Christ, which
was the entire recovery of us to himself could not be attained.
And therefore as faith, under the formal consideration of it,
was necessary to the first end, namely, that of giving glory to
God, so to this latter end, it was necessary that this faith should
be accompanied with, yea and contain in itself the seeds of all
those other graces wherein the Divine nature consists, whereof
we are to be made partakers. Not only therefore the thing
itself, or the communication of the righteousness of Christ to
us, but the way and manner, and means of it, depend on God's
sovereign order and disposal. Wherefore although Christ made
satisfaction to the justice of God, for all the sins of the church,
and that as a common person, (for no man in his wits can deny
but that he who is a mediator and a surety, is in some sense a
244
THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
common person) and although he paid all our debts, yet does
the particular interest of this or that man. in what he did and
sufiered, depend on the wav, means, and order designed of
God to that end. This and this alone gives the true necessity
of all the duties which are required of us, with their order and
their ends.
3dly, It is objected, " That the imputation of the righteous-
ness of Christ, which we defend, overthrows the necessity of
faith itself" This is home indeed. ,/2 liquid adhserebit,'\s the
design of all these objections. But they have reason to plead
for themselves who make it. " For on this supposition," they
say, " the righteousness of Christ is ours before Vv^e believe.
For Christ satisfied for all our sins, as if we had satisfied in our
own persons. And he who is esteemed to have satisfied for
all his sins in his own person, is acquitted from them all, and
accounted just, whether he believe or not; nor is there any
ground or reason why he should be required to believe. If
therefore the righteousness of Christ be really ours, because in
the judgment of God we are esteemed to have wrought it in
him, then it is ours before we believe. If it be otherwise, then
it is plain that that righteousness itself can never be made ours
by believing; only the fruits and effects of it may be suspended
on our believing, whereby we may be made partakers of them.
Yea if Christ made any such satisfaction for us as is pretended, it
is really ours, without any further imputation. For being per-
formed for us and in our stead it is the highest injustice not to
have us accounted pardoned and acquitted, without any further
imputation on the part of God, or faith on ours." These things
I have transcribed out of Socinus, which I would not have
done, but that I find others to have gone before me therein,
though to another purpose. And he concludes with a confi-
dence which others also seem in some measure to have learned
of him. For he says to his adversary, Hsec tiia, iuoruinque
sententia, adcofceda et execrabilis est, ut pestihntiorem error-
em post homines oiatos in populo Dei extilisse non credam;
speaking of the satisfaction of Christ and the imputation of it to
believers. And indeed his serpentine wit was fertile in the in-
vention of cavils against all the mysteries of the gospel. Nor
was he obliged by any one of them, so as to contradict himself
in what he opposed concerning any other of them. For deny-
ing the deity of Christ, his satisfaction, sacrifice, merit, right-
eousness, and overthrowing the whole nature of his mediation,
nothing stood in his way which he had a mind to oppose. But
THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
245
I somewhat wonder how others can make use of his inventions
in this kind, who, if they considered aright their proper ten-
dency, would find them to be absolutely destructive of what
they seem to own. So it is in this present objection against
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; if it has any
force in it, as indeed it has not, it is to prove that the satisfac-
tion of Christ was impossible; and so he intended it. But it
will be easily removed.
I answer first in general; that the whole fallacy of this objec-
tion lies in the opposing one part of the design and method of
God's grace in this mystery of our justification, to another; or
the taking of one part of it to be the whole, which as to its
efficacy and perfection depends on something else. Hereof we
warned the reader in our previous discourses. For the whole
of it is a supposition, that the satisfaction of Christ, if there be
any such thing, must have its whole eff"ect, without believing
on our part, which is contrary to the whole declaration of the
will of God in the gospel. But I shall principally respect them
who are pleased to make use of this objection, and yet do not
deny the satisfaction of Christ. And I say
1. When the Lord Christ died for us, and offered himself as
a propitiatory sacrifice, God laid all our sins on him, Isa. liii. 6.
And he then bare them all in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet.
ii. 24. Then he suffered in our stead, and made full satisfac-
tion for all our sins; for he appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself, Heb. ix. 26; and by one offering he hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. x. 14. He
whose sins were not actually and absolutely satisfied for, in
that one offering of Christ, shall never have them expiated
to eternity. For henceforth he dieth no more, there is no more
sacrifice for sin. The repetition of a sacrifice for sin, which
must be the crucifying of Christ afresh, overthrows the founda-
tion of the Christian religion.
2. Notwithstanding this full, plenary satisfaction once made
for the sins of the world that shall be saved; yet all men con-
tinue equally to be born by nature children of wrath, and whilst
they believe not, the wrath of God abideth on them, John iii,
36; that is, they are obnoxious to, and under the curse of the
law. Wherefore on the only making of that satisfaction, no
one for whom it was made in the design of God, can be said
to have suffered in Christ, nor to have an interest in his satis-
faction, nor by any way or means be made partaker of it ante-
cedently to another act of God in its imputation to him. For
21*
246 THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
this is but one part of the purpose of God's grace, as to our jus-
tification by the blood of Christ, namely, that he by his death
should make satisfaction for our sins. Nor is it to be separated
from what also belongs to it, in the same purpose of God.
Wherefore from the position or grant of the satisfaction of
Christ, no argument can be taken to the negation of a conse-
quential act of its imputation to us; nor therefore of the neces-
sity of our faith in the believing and receiving of it, which is
no less the appointment of God, than it was that Christ should
make that satisfaction. Wherefore
3. That which the Lord Christ paid for us, is as truly paid,
as if we had paid it ourselves. So he speaks, Psalm Ixix. 5.
" I restored that which I took not away." He made no spoil
of the glory of God; what was done of that nature by us, he
returned it to him. And what he underwent and suffered, he
underwent and suffered inour stead. But yet the act of God in
laying our sins on Christ, conveyed no actual right and title to us,
to what he did and suffered. They are not immediately thereon,
nor by virtue thereof, ours, or esteemed ours, because God has
appointed somewhat else, not only antecedent thereto, but as
the means of it, to his own glory. These things both as to
their being and order,', depend on the free ordination of God.
But yet, '"1.
4. It cannot be said that this satisfaction was made for us on
such a condition as should absolutely suspend the event, and
render it uncertain whether it should ever be for us or not.
Such a constitution may be lighteous in pecuniary matters.
A man may lay down a great sum of money for the discharge
of another, on such a condition as may never be fulfilled. For
on the absolute failure of the condition, his money may and
ought to be restored to him, whereon he has received no injury
or damage. But in penal suffering for crimes and sins, there
can be no righteous constitution that shall make tlie event and
efficacy of it depend on a condition absolutely uncertain, and
which may not come to pass or be fulfilled. For if the condi-
tion fail, no recompense can be made to him who has suffered.
Wherefore the way of the application of the satisfaction of
Christ to them for whom it was made, is sure and steadfast in
the purpose of God.
5. God has appointed that there shall be an immediate foun-
dation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness
of Christ to us, whereon we may be said to have djne and
suffered in him, what he did and suffered in our stead, by that
V
THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION. 247
grant, donation, and imputation of it to us; or that we may be
interested in it, that it may be made ours, which is aU we con-
tend for. And this is our actual coalescence into one mystical
person with him by faiih. Hereon the necessity of faith origi-
nally depends. And if we shall add hereto the necessity of it
likewise to that especial glory of God which he designs to exalt
in our justification by Christ, as also to all the ends of our obe-
dience to God, and the renovation of our natures into his
image, its station is sufficiently secured against all objections.
Our actual interest in the satisfaction of Christ, depends on our
actual insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to
the appointment of God.
4thly. It is yet objected, that if the righteousness of Christ be
made ours, we may be said to be saviours of the world as he
was, or to save others as he did. For he was so and did so by
his righteousness and no otherwise. This objection also is of
the same nature with those foregoing, a mere sophistical cavil.
For,
1. The righteousness of Christ is not transfused into us, so
as to be made inherently and subjectively ours, as it was in
him, and which is necessarily required to that effect of saving
others thereby. Whatever we may do, or be said to do with
respect to others, by virtue of any power or quality inherent
in ourselves, we can be said to do nothing to others, or for
them, by virtue of that which is imputed to us, only for our
own benefit. That any righteousness of ours should benefit
another, it is absolutely necessary that it should be wrought by
ourselves.
2. If the righteousness of Christ could be transfused into
us, and be made inherently ours, yet could we not be, nor be
said to be the saviours of others thereby. For our nature in
our individual persons, is not siihjectiim capux, or capable to
receive and retain a righteousness useful and effectual to that
end. This capacity was given to it in Christ by virtue of the
hypostatical union, and not otherwise. The righteousness of
Christ himself as performed in the human nature, would not
have been sufficient for the justification and salvation of the
church, had it not been the righteousness of his person, who is
both God and man; for "God redeemed his church with his
own blood."
3. This imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us, as
to its ends and use, has its measure from the will of God, and
his purpose in that imputation. And this is, that it should be
248 THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION.
the righteousness of them to whom it is imputed, and nothing
else.
4, We do not say that the righteousness of Christ as made
absolutely for the whole church, is imputed to every believer.
But his satisfaction for every one of them in particular, accord-
ing to the will of God, is imputed to them; not with respect to
its general ends, but according to every one's particular inte-
rest. Every believer has his own homer of this bread of life;
and all are justified by the same righteousness.
5. The Apostle declares, as we shall prove afterwards, that
as Adam's actual sin is imputed to us to condemnation, so is
the obedience of Christ imputed to us, to the justification of life.
But Adam's sin is not so imputed to any person, as that he
should then and thereby be the cause of sin and condemnation
to all other persons in the world; but only that he himself
should become guilty before God thereon. And so is it on the
other side. And as we are made guilty bj^ Adam's actual sin
which is not inherent in us, but only imputed to us; so are we
made righteous by the righteousness of Christ which is not in-
herent in us, but only imputed to us. And imputed to us it is,
because himself was righteous with it, not for himself but
for us.
It is yet said, that "if we insist on personal imputation to every
believer of what Christ did, or if any believer be personally
righteous in the very individual acts of Christ's righteousness,
many absurdities will follow." But it was observed before,
that when any design to oppose an opinion from the absurdi-
ties which they suppose would follow upon it, they are much
inclined so to state it, that at least they may seem so to do.
And this ofttimes the most worthy and candid persons are not
free from in the heat of disputation. So I fear it is here fallen
out. For as to "personal imputation" I do not well understand
it. All imputation is to a person, and is the act of a person, be
it of what, and what sort it will, but from neither of them can
be denominated a personal imputation. And if an imputation
be allowed that is not to the persons of men, namely, in this
case to all believers, the nature of it has not yet been declared,
as I know of.
That any have so expressed the imputation pleaded for, that
every believer should be personally righteous in the very indi-
vidual acts of Christ's righteousness, I know not; I have neither
read nor heard any of them who have so expressed their mind.
It may be some have done so; but I shall not undertake the de-
\
THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
249
fence of what they liave done. For it seems not only to sup-
pose that Christ did every individual act which in any instance
is required of us, but also that those acts are made our own in-
herently; both which are false and impossible. That which
indeed is pleaded for in this imputation, is only this: that what
the Lord Christ did and su tiered as the mediator and surety of
the covenant in answer to the law, for them and in their stead,
is imputed to every one of them to the justification of life.
And sufficient this is to that end without any such supposals.
(1) From the dignity of the person who yielded his obedience,
which rendered it both satisfactory and meritorious, and impu-
table to many. (2) From the nature of the obedience itself,
which was a perfect compliance with, a fulfihing of, and satis-
faction to, the whole law in all its demands. This on the sup-
position of that act of God's sovereign authority, whereby a
representative of the whole church was introduced to answer
the law, is the ground of his righteousness being made theirs,
and being every way sufficient to their justification. (3) From
the constitution of God, that what was done and suffered by
Christ as a public person and our surety, should be reckoned to
us as if done by ourselves. So the sin of Adam whilst he was
a public person, and represented his whole posterity, is im-
puted to us all as if we had committed that actual sin. This
Bellarmine himself frequently acknowledges.* " We sinned in
the first man, when he sinned, and that transgression of his was
also our transgression. For we could not be truly made sinners
through the disobedience of Adam, unless his disobedience was
also ours." And elsewliere, "that the actual sin of Adam is
imputed tons, as if we all had committed that actual sin; that
is, broken the whole law of God." And this is that whereby
the Apostle illustrates the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ to believers; and it may on as good grounds be charged
with absurdities as the other. It is not therefore said that
God judges that we have in our own persons done those very
acts, and endured that penalty of the law which the Lord Christ
did and endured. For this would overthrow all imputation.
But what Christ did and suffered, that God imputes to believers
to the justification of life, as if it had been done by themselves;
and his righteousness as a public person is made theirs by im-
* Peccavimus in primo homine quando ille peccavit, et ilia ejus praevaricatio
nostra ctiam piiEvaricatio fuit. Non enim vere per Adami inobedientiain consti-
tueremur peccatores, nisi inobedientia illius nostra etiam inobedientia esset. De
Amiss. Grat. et Stat. Peccat. lib. 5. cap. 18.
250 THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
putation, even as the sin of Adam whilst a public person, is
made the sin of all his posterity by imputation.
Hereon none of the absurdities pretended, which are really
such, do at all follow. It does not follow, that Christ in his
own person performed every individual act that we in our cir-
cumstances are obliged to in a way of duty; nor was there any
need that so he should do. This imputation, as I have showed,
stands on other foundations. Nor does it follow, that every
saved person's righteousness before God is the same identically
and numerically with Christ's in his public capacity as mediator;
for this objection destroys itself, by affirming that as it was his,
it was the righteousness of God-man; and so it has an especial
nature as it respects or relates to his person. It is the same that
Christ in his public capacity wrought or effected. But there is a
wide difference in the consideration of it, as his absolutely and as
made ours. It was formally inherent in him, is only materially
Imputed to us; was actively his, is passively ours; was wrought
in the person of God-man, for the whole church; is imputed
to each single believer, as to his own concernment only. Adam's
sin as imputed to us, is not the sin of a representative, though
it be of him that was so; but is the particular sin of every one
of us. But this objection must be farther spoken to where it
occurs afterwards. Nor will it follow, that on this supposition
we should be accounted to have done, that which was done
long before we were in a capacity of doing any thing. For
what is done for us and in our stead, before we are in any such
capacity, may be imputed to us, as is the sin of Adam. And
yet there is a manifold sense wherein men may be said to have
done what was done for them, and in their name before their
actual existence; so that therein is no absurdity. As to what
is added by the way, that Christ did not do nor suffer the idem,
the identical thing, that we were obliged to; whereas he did
what the law required, and suffered what the law threatened
to the disobedient, which is the whole of what we are obliged
to, it will not be so easily proved; nor the arguments very
suddenly answered whereby the contrary has been confirmed.
That Christ did sustain the place of a surety, or was the surety
of the new covenant, the Scripture so expressly affirms, that it
cannot be denied. And that there may be sureties in cases
criminal, as well as civil and pecuniary, has been proved be-
fore. What else occurs about the singularity of Christ's obe-
dience as he was mediator, proves only that his righteousness
as formally and inherently his, was peculiar to himself, and
THE FORMAL CAUSE OP JUSTIFICATION. 251
that the adjuncts of it which arise from its relation to his per-
son, as it was inherent in him, are not communicable to them
to whom it is imputed.
It is moreover urged " That upon the supposed imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, it will follow that every believer
is justified by the works of the law. For the obedience of
Christ was a legal righteousness, and if that be imputed to us,
then are we justified by the law, which is contrary to express
testimonies of Scripture in many places." Ans. (1)1 know
nothing more frequent in the writings of some learned men,
than that the righteousness of Christ is our legal righteousness;
who yet I presume are able to free themselves of this objec-
tion. (2) If this follow in the true sense of being justified by
the law, or the works of it, so denied in the Scripture, their
weakness is much to be pitied who can see no other way
whereby we may be freed from an obligation to be justified
by the law, but by this imputation of the righteousness of
Christ. (3) The Scripture which aflirms that " by the deeds
of the law no man can be justified," affirms in like manner,
that "by faith we do not make void the law, but establish it;"
that "the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us;" that
Christ " came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, and is the
end of the law for righteousness unto them that believe."
And that the law must be fulfilled or we cannot be justified,
we shall prove afterwards. (4) We are not hereon justified
by the law or the works of it, in the only sense of that propo-
sition in the Scripture, and to coin new senses or significations
of it, is not safe. The meaning of it in the Scripture is, that
only "the doers of the law shall be justified," Rom. ii, 13; and
that " he that doth the things of it shall live by them," chap.
X. 5; namely, in his own person, by the way of personal duty
which alone the law requires. But if we who have not ful-
filled the law in the way of inherent personal obedience, are
justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us,
then are we justified by Christ and not by the law. But it is
said, that " this will not relieve, for if his obedience be so im-
puted to us, that we are accounted by God in judgment to have
done what Christ did, we are as much justified by the law, as
if we had in our own proper persons performed an unsinning
obedience to it." This I confess I cannot understand. The
nature of this imputation is here represented as formerly, in
such a way as we caimot acknowledge; from thence alone this
inference is made, which yet in my judgment does not follow
252 THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
thereon. For grant an imputation of the righteousness of an-
other to us, be it of what nature it will, all justification by the
law and works of it in the sense of the Scripture is gone for
ever. The admission of imputation takes off all power from
the law to justify; for it can justify none, but upon a righteous-
ness that is originally and inherently his own. " The man that
doth them shall live in them." If the righteousness that is im-
puted be the ground and foundation of our justification, and
made ours by that imputation, state it how you will, that jus-
tification is of grace and not of the law. However I know
not of any that say we are accounted of God in judgment per-
sonally to have done what Christ did; and it may have a sense
that is false; namely, that God should judge us in our own
persons to have done those acts which we never did. But
what Clirist did for us and in our stead, is imputed and com-
municated to us, as we coalesce into one mystical person with
him by faith, and thereon are we justified. And this abso-
lutely overthrows all justification by the law or the works of
it; though the law be established, fulfilled and accomplished,
that we may be justified.
Neither can any on the supposition of the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ truly stated, be said to merit their own
salvation. Satisfaction and merit are adjuncts of the righteous-
ness of Christ as formally inherent in his own person; and as
such it cannot be transfused into another. Wherefore as it is
imputed to individual believers, it has not those properties ac-
companying it which belong only to its existence in the person
of the Son of God. But this was spoken to before, as much
also of what was necessary to be here repeated.
These objections I have in this place taken notice of, because
the answers given to them tend to the further explanation of
that truth, whose confirmation by arguments and testimonies
of Scripture I shall now proceed to.
ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION. 253
CHAPTER X.
ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHT-
EOUSNESS OF CHRIST. THE FIRST ARGUMENT FROM THE NATURE AND
USE OF OUR OWN PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.
There is a justification of convinced sinners on their believ-
ing. Hereon are their sins pardoned, their persons accepted
with God, and a right is given to them, to the heavenly in-
heritance. This state they are immediately taken into upon
their faith, or believing in Jesus Christ. And a state it is of
actual peace with God. These things at present I take for
granted, and they are the foundation of all that I shall plead
in the present argument. And I take notice of them because
some seem, to the best of my understanding, to deny any real
actual justification of sinners on their beheving in this life.
For they make justification to be only a general conditional
sentence declared in the gospel, which as to its execution, is
delayed to the day of judgment. For whilst men are in this
world, the whole condition of it being not fulfilled, they cannot
be partakers of it, or be actually and absolutely justified.
Hereon it follows, that indeed there is no real state of assured
rest and peace with God by Jesus Christ, for any persons in
this life. This at present I shall not dispute about, because it
seems to me to overthrow the whole gospel, the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and all the comfort of believers about which
I hope we are not as yet called to contend.
Our inquiry is, how convinced sinners do on their believing
obtain the remission of sins, acceptance with God, and a right
to eternal life. And if this can no other way be done, but by
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to them, then
thereby alone are they justified in the sight of God. And this
assertion proceeds on a supposition that there is a righteous-
ness required to the justification of any person whatever. For
whereas God in the justification of any person, declares him to
be acquitted from all crimes laid to his charge, and to stand as
righteous in his sight, it must be on the consideration of a right-
eousness, whereon any man is so acquitted and declared; for
the judgment of God is according to truth. This we have suf-
ficiently evidenced before in that juridical procedure wherein
the Scripture represents to us the justification of a believing
22
254 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
sinner. And if there be no other righteousness whereby we
may be thus justified, but only that of Christ imputed to us,
then thereby must we be justified or not at all And if there
be any such other righteousness, it must be our own, inherent
in us, and wrought out by us. For these two kinds inherent
and imputed rigliteousness, our own and Christ's, divide the
whole nature of righteousness, as to the end inquired after.
And that there is no such inherent righteousness, no such right-
eousness of our own whereby we may be justified before God,
I shall prove in the first place. And I shall do it, first from
express testimonies of Scripture, and then from the considera-
tion of the thing itself. And two things I shall premise hereto.
1. That I shall not consider this righteousness of our own
absolutely in itself, but as it may be conceived to be improved
and advanced by its relation to the satisfaction and merit of
Christ; for many will grant that our inherent righteousness is
not of itself sufficient to justify us in the sight of God. But take
it as it has value and worth communicated to it from the merit
of Christ, and so it is accepted to that end, and judged worthy
of eternal life. We could not merit life and salvation, had not
Christ merited that grace for us whereby we may do so; and
merited also that our works should be of such a dignity with
respect to reward. We shall therefore allow what worth can
be reasonably thought to be commimicated to this righteous-
ness from its respect to the merit of Christ.
2. Whereas persons of all sorts and parties take various ways
in the assigning of an interest in our justification to our own
righteousness, so that no parties are agreed about it, nor many
of the same mind among themselves, as might easily be mani-
fested in the Papists, Socinians, and others, I shall so far as it
is possible in the ensuing arguments have respect to them all.
For my design is to prove, that it has no such interest in our
justification before God, as that the righteousness of Christ
should not be esteemed the only righteousness whereon we are
justified.
And first, we shall produce some of those many testimonies
which may be pleaded to this purpose, Psalm cxxx. 3, 4. " If
thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities, 0 Lord, who should stand?
But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared."
There is an inquiry included in these words, how a man, how
any man may be justified before God; how he may "stand,"
that is, in the presence of God, and be accepted with him; how
he shall stand in judgment, as it is explained, Psalm i. 5. " The
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST.
255
wicked shall not stand in the judgment," shall not be acquitted
on their trial. That which first offers itself to this end, is his
own obedience. For this the law requires of him in the first
place, and this his own conscience calls upon him for. But
the Psalmist plainly declares that no man can thence manage
a plea for his justification with any success. And the reason
is, because notwithstanding the best of the obedience of the
best of men, there are iniquities found with them against the
Lord their God. And if men come to their trial before God
whether they shall be justified or condemned, these also must
be heard and taken into the account. But then no man can
"stand,"' no man can "be justified" as it is elsewhere express-
ed. Wherefore the wisest and safest course is, as to our justi-
fication before God, utterly to forego this plea, and not to in-
sist on our own obedience, lest our sins should appear also, and
be heard. No reason can any man give on his own account,
why they should not so be. And if they be so, the best of
men will be cast in their trial, as the Psalmist declares.
Two things are required in this trial that a sinner may stand.
(I) That his iniquities be not observed, for if they be so, he is
lost for ever. (2) That a righteousness be produced and plead-
ed that will endure the trial. For justification is upon a justi-
fying righteousness. For the first of these, the Psalmist tells
us, it must be through pardon or forgiveness. ' But there is for-
giveness with thee, wherein lies our only relief against the con-
demnatory sentence of the law with respect to our iniquities;
that is, through the blood of Christ; for in him "we have re-
demption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,"
Ephes. i. 7. The other cannot be our own obedience, because
of our iniquities. Wherefore this the same Psalmist directs us
to. Psalm Ixxi. IG. " I will go in the strength of the Lord God;
I will make mention of thy righteousness, of thine only." The
righteousness of God, and not his own, yea in opposition to his
own, is the only plea that in this case he would insist upon.
If no man can stand a trial before God upon his own obe-
dience, so as to be justified before him, because of his own per-
sonal iniquities; and if our only plea in that case be the right-
eousness of God, the righteousness of God only and not our
own, then is there no personal inherent righteousness in any
believers whereon they may be justified; which is that which
is to be proved.
The same is again asserted by the same person, and that more
plainly and directly, Psalm cxliii. 2. "Enter not into judgment
256 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justi-
fied." This testimony is the more to be considered, because as it
is derived from the law, Exod. xxxiv. 7, so it is transferred to
the gospel, and twice urged by the Apostle to the same pur-
pose, Rom. iii. 20. Gal. ii. 16.
The person who insists on this plea with God, professes
himself to be his servant. Enter not into judgment with thy
servant; that is, one that loved him, lea red him, yielded all
sincere obedience. He was not a hypocrite, not an unbe-
liever, not an unregenerate person, who had performed no
works but such as were legal, such as the law required, and
such as were done in the strength of the law only; such works
as all will acknowledge to be excluded from our justification;
and which as many judge, are only those which are so ex-
cluded. David it was, who was not only converted, a true
believer, had the Spirit of God, and the aids of special grace
in his obedience, but had this testimony to his sincerity, that
he was " a man after God's own heart." And this witness had
he in his own conscience of his integrity, uprightness, and per-
sonal righteousness, so that he frequently avows them, appeals
to God concerning the truth of them, and pleads them as a
ground of judgment between him and his adversaries. We
have therefore a case stated in the instance of a sincere and
eminent believer, who excelled most in inherent personal
righteousness.
This person under these circumstances, thus testified to,
both by God and in his own conscience, as to the sincerity,
yea as to the eminency of his obedience; considers how he
may stand before God, and be justified in his sight. Why
does he not now plead his own merits, and that, if not ex con-
digno, yet at least ex congruo, he deserved to be acquitted and
justified? But he left this plea for that generation of men that
were to come after, who would "justify themselves," and des-
pise others. But suppose he had no such confidence in the
merit of his works as some have now attained to, yet why does
he not freely enter into judgment with God, put it to the trial
whether he should be justified or not, by pleading that he iiad
fulfilled the condition of the new covenant, that everlasting
covenant which God made with him, ordered in all things and
sure? For upon a supposition of the procurement of that cove-
nant and the terms of it, by Christ, (for I suppose the virtue of
that purchase he made of it, is allowed to extend to the Old
Testament) this was all that was required of him. Is it not to
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 257
be feared that he was one of them who see no necessity of
personal lioUness and righteousness, seeing he makes no men-
tion of it, now it should stand him in the greatest stead? At
least he might plead his faith as his own duty and work, to be
imputed to him for righteousness. But whatever the reason
be, he waves them all, and absolutely deprecates a trial upon
them. " Come not," says he, " 0 Lord, into judgment with
thy servant," as it is promised that he who believes should not
come into judgment, John v. 24.
And if this holy person renounce the whole consideration of
all his personal inherent righteousness, in every kind, and will
not insist upon it under any pretence, in any place, as to any
use in his justification before God, we may safely conclude
there is no such righteousness in any whereby they may be
justified. And if men would but leave those shades and cov-
erts under which they hide themselves in their disputations, if
they would forego those pretences and distinctions wherewith
they delude themselves and others, and tell us plainly what
plea they dare make in the presence of God, from their own
righteousness and obedience that tliey may be justified before
him, we should better understand their minds than now we
do. There is one I confess, who speaks with some confidence
to this purpose. And that is Vasquez the Jesuit.* " Inherent
righteousness renders the soul so just and holy, and conse-
quently a child of God, that in fact it renders it an heir worthy
of eternal glory. Nay, God himself cannot cause that a right-
eous man of this kind should not be worthy of eternal bliss!"
Is it not sad that David should discover so much ignorance of
the worth of his inherent righteousness, and discover so much
pusillanimity with respect to his trial before God, whereas God
himself could not otherwise order it, but that he was and must
be worthy of eternal blessedness?
The reason the Psalmist gives why he will not put it to the
trial whether he should be acquitted or justified upon his own
obedience, is this general axiom, " For in thy sight," or before
thee, " shall no man living be justified." This must be spoken
absolutely, or with respect to some one way or cause of justifi-
cation. If it be spoken absolutely, then this work ceases for
ever, and there is indeed no such thing as justification before
* Inhserens Justitia ita rcddit animam justam et sanctam, ac proinde filiam
Dei, ut hoc ipso reddat eani licredem, et dignam seterria gloria; imo ipse Deus
cificcre non potest ut hujusmodi Justus dignus non sit aeterna beatitudine.
9/2 ^-
258 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
God. But this is contrary to the whole Scripture, and destruc-
tive of the gospel. Wherefore it is spoken with respect to our
own obedience and works. He does not pray absolutely that
he would not enter into judgnrient with him, for this were to
forego his government of the world, but that he would not do
so on the account of his own duties and obedience. But if so
be these duties and that obedience answered in any sense or way,
what is required of us as a righteousness to justification, there
was no reason why he should deprecate a trial by them or
upon them. But whereas the Holy Ghost so positively affirms,
that no man living shall be justified in the sight of God, by or
upon his own works or obedience, it is, I confess, marvellous
to me, that some should so interpret the Apostle James, as if
he affirmed the express contrary; namely, that we are justi-
fied in the sight of God by our own works, whereas indeed he
says no such thing. This therefore is an eternal rule of truth,
by, or upon his own obedience, no man living can be justified
in the sight of God. It will be said "that if God enter into
judgment with any on their own obedience by and according
to the law, then indeed none can be justified before him. But
God judging according to the gospel, and the terms of the new-
covenant, men may be justified upon their own duties, works,
and obedience." Ans. (1) The negative assertion is general,
and unlimited; that no man living shall (on his own works or
obedience) be justified in the sight of God. And to limit it to
this or that way of judging, is not to distinguish but to contra-
dict the Holy Ghost. (2) The judgment intended is only with
respect to justification, as is plain in the words. But there is
no judgment on our works or obedience, with respect to right-
eousness and justification, but by the proper rule and measure
of them, which is the law. If they will not endure the trial
by the law, they will endure no trial as to righteousness and
justification in the sight of God. (3) The prayer and plea of
the Psalmist on this supposition, are to this purpose: " 0 Lord
enter not into judgment with thy servant, by or according to
the law; but enter into judgment with me, on my own works
and obedience according to the rule of the gospel;" for which
he gives this reason, " because in thy sight shall no man living
he justified;" how remote from his intention need not be de-
clared. (4) The judgment of God to justification according to
the gospel, does not proceed on our works of obedience, but
upon the righteousness of Christ, and our interest therein by
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 259
faith, as is too evident to be modestly denied. Notwitlistand-
ing this exception, therefore, hence we argue; —
If the most holy of the servants of God, in and after a course
of sincere fruitful obedience, testified to by God himself, and
witnessed in their own consciences, that is, whilst they have
the greatest evidences of their own sincerity, and that indeed
they are the servants of God, do renounce all thoughts of such
a righteousness thereby, as whereon in any sense they may be
justified before God; then there is no such righteousness in any,
but it is the righteousness of Christ alone imputed to us where-
on we are so justified. But that so they do, and ought all of
them so to do, because of the general rule here laid down, that
in the sight of God no man living shall be justified, is plainly
affirmed in this testimony.
I no way doubt but that many learned men, after all their
pleas for an interest of personal righteousness and works in our '
justification before God, do as to their own practice betake
theraslves to this method of the Psalmist, and cry as the prophet
Daniel does in the name of the Church; "we do not present
our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for
thy great mercies," Dan. ix. IS. And therefore Job (as we
have formerly observed) after a long and earnest defence of
his own faith, integrity, and personal righteousness, wherein
he justified himself against the charge of Satan and men, being
called to plead his cause in the sight, of God, and declare on
what grounds he expected to be justified before him, renounces
all his former pleas, and betakes himself to the same with the
Psalmist, Job. xl. 4; xlii. 6.
It is true in particular cases, and as to some especial end in
the providence of God, a man may plead his own integrity and
obedience before God himself. So did Hezekiah when he
prayed for the sparing of his life, Isa. xxxviii. 3. " Remember
now, 0 Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee
in truth, and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is
good in thy sight." This I say may be done with respect to
temporal deliverance, or any other particular end wherein the
glory of God is concerned. So was it greatly in sparing the
life of Hezekiah at that time. For whereas he had with great
zeal and industry reformed religion, and restored the true wor-
ship of God, the cutting him off' in the midst of his days, would
have occasioned the idolatrous multitude to have reflected on
him as one dying under a token of divine displeasure. But
none ever made this plea before God, for the absolute juslifica-
260 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BV THE
tiou of their persons. So Nehemiah in that great contest which
he had about the worship of God, and the service of his house,
pleads the remembrance of it before God, in his justification
against his adversaries, but resolves his own personal accept-
ance with God into pardoning mercy; "and spare me accord-
ing to the multitude of thy mercies,'^ Neh. xiii. 22,
Another testimony we have to the same purpose, in the pro-
phet Isaiah, speaking in the name of the Church, Isa. Ixiv. 6.
" We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses
are as filthy rags." It is true the prophet in this place makes
a deep confession of the sins of the people. But yet withal he
joins himself with them, and asserts the especial interest of
those concerning wliom he speaks by adoption; that God was
their Father, and they his people, Isa. Ixiii. 16; Ixiv. 8, 9. And
the righteousnesses of all that are the children of God are of
the same kind; however they may differ in degrees, and some
of them may be more righteous than others. But it is all of it
described to be such, that we cannot, I think, justly expect jus-
tification in the sight of God, upon the account of it. But
whereas the consideration of the nature of our inherent right-
eousness belongs to the second way of the confirmation of our
present argument, I shall not further here insist on this testi-
mony.
Many others also to the same purpose, I shall wholly omit;
namely, all those wherein the saints of God or the Church, in an
humble acknowledgment and confession of their own sins, be-
take themselves to the mercy and grace of God alone, as dis-
pensed through the mediation and blood of Christ; and all those
wherein God promises to pardon and blot out our iniejuilies for
his own sake, for his name's sake; to bless the people not for any
good that was in them, nor for their righteousness, nor for their
works, the consideration whereof he excludes from having any
influence on any actings of his grace towards them; and all
those wherein God expresses his delight in them alone, and his
approbation of them who hope in his mercy, trust in his name,
betaking themselves to him as their only refuge, pronouncing
them accursed who trust in any thing else, or glory in them-
selves; such as contain singular promises to them that betake
themselves to God, as fatherless, hopeless, and lost in them-
selves.
The testimonies which are multiplied to this purpose, suffi-
ciently prove, that the best of God's saints have not a righteous-
ness of their own, whereon they can in any sense be justified
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 261
before God. For they all, in the places referred to, renounce
any such righteousness of their own, all that is in them, all that
they have done or can do, and betake themelves to grace and
mercy alone. And whereas, as we have before proved, God
in the justification of any, exercises grace towards them with
respect to a righteousness, whereon he declares them righteous
and accepted before him, they all respect a righteousness which
is not inherent in us but imputed to us.
Herein lies the substance of all that we inquire into, in this
matter of justification. All other disputes about any kind of
interest for our own works and obedience in our justification
before God, are but the speculations of men at ease. The con-
science of a convinced sinner, who presents himself in the pre-
sence of God, finds all practically reduced to this one point,
namely, whether he will trust to his own personal inherent
righteousness, or in a full renunciation of it, betake himself to
the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ alone. In
other things he is not concerned. And let a man phrase his
own righteousness as he pleases, let him pretend it merito-
rious, or only evangelical, not legal, only an accomplishment
of the condition of the new covenant, a cause without which
he cannot be justified, it will not be easy to frame his mind to
any confidence in it, as to justification before God; so as not to
deceive him in the issue. - . ■
The second part of the present argument is taken from the
nature of the tiling itself, or the consideration of this personal
inherent righteousness of our own, what it is and wherein it
consists, and of what use it may be in our justification. ' And
to this purpose it may be observed,
1. That we grant an inherent righteousness in all that be-
lieve, as has been before declared. " For the fruit of the Spirit
is in all goodness and righteousness and truth," Ephes. v. 9.
" Being made free from sin, we become the servants of right-
eousness," Rom. vi. 20. And our duty it is to •' follow after
righteousness, godliness, faith, love, meekness," 1 Tim. ii. 22.
And although righteousness be mostly taken for an especial
grace, or duty, distinct from other graces and duties, yet we
acknowledge that it may be taken for the whole of our obedi-
ence before God; and the word is so used in the Scripture,
where our own righteousness is opposed to the righteousness
of God. And it is either habitual or actual. There is an ha-
bitual righteousness inherent in believers, as they have "put
on the new man which after God is created in righteousness
262 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
and true holiness," Ephes, iv. 24; as they are the " workman-
ship of God created in Jesus Christ unto good works," ii. 8.
And there is an actual righteousness coiisisiing in those good
works whereto we are so created, or the fruits of righteous-
ness, which are to the praise of God by Jesus Christ. And
concerning this righteousness it may be observed; (1) that
men are said in the Scripture, to be just or righteous by it, but
no one is said to be justified by it before God; (2) that it is not
ascribed to, or found in any, but those that are actually jus-
tified in order of nature antecedent thereto.
This being the constant doctrine of all the reformed churches
and divines, it is an open calumny whereby the contrary is as-
cribed to them, or any of those who beheve the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ for our justification before God. So
Bellarmine affirms that no Protestant writers acknowledge an
inherent righteousness, but only Bucer and Chemnitius, when
there is no one of them, by whom either the thing itself, or the
necessity of it, is denied. But some excuse may be made for
him, from the manner whereby they expressed themselves,
wherein they always carefully distinguished between inherent
holiness, and that righteousness whereby we are justified. But
we are now told by one, that if we should affirm it an hundred
times he could scarce believe us. This is somewhat severe;
for although he speaks but to one, yet the charge falls equally
upon all who maintain that imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, which he denies; who being at least the generality of
all Protestant divines, they are represented either as so foolish,
as not to know what they say, or so dishonest as to say one
thing and believe another. But he endeavours to justify his
censure by sundry reasons; and first he says, " that inherent
righteousness can on no other account be said to be ours, than
that by it we are made righteous; that is, that it is the condi-
tion of our justification required in the new covenant. This
being denied, all inherent righteousness is denied." But how
is this proved? what if one should say, that every believer is
inherently righteous, but yet that this inherent righteousness
was not the condition of his justification, but rather the conse-
quence of it, and that it is no where required in the new cove-
nant as the condition of our justification, bow shall the con-
trary be made to appear? The Scripture plainly affirms that
there is such an inherent righteousness in all that believe; and
yet as plainly that we are justified before God, by faith with-
out works. Wherefore that it is the condition of our justifica-
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 263
tioii and so antecedent to it, is expressly contrary to that of the
Apostle; " to him that worketh not, but beheveth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,"
Rom. iv. 5. Nor is it the condition of the covenant itself, as
that whereon the whole grace of the covenant is suspended.
For as it is habitual, wherein the denomination of righteous is
principally taken, it is a grace of the covenant itself, and so not
a condition of it, Jerem. xxxi. 33; xxxii. 39. Ezek. xxxvi. 25 —
27. If no more be intended, but that it is as to its actual ex-
ercise what is indispensably required of all that are taken into
covenant, in order to the complete ends of ir, we are agreed.
But hence it will not follow that it is the condition of our jus-
tification. It is added, " that all righteousness respects a law
and a rule, by which it is to be tried. And he is righteous,
who has done these things which that law requires, by whose
rule he is to be judged." But (1) this is not the way whereby
the Scripture expresses our justification before God, which
alone is under consideration; namely, that we bring to it a
personal righteousness of our own, answering the law where-
by wo are to be judged. Yea an assertion to this purpose is
foreign to the gospel, and destructive of the grace of God by
Jesus Christ. (2) It is granted, that all righteousness respects
a law as the rule of it; and so does this whereof we speak,
namely, the moral law, which being the sole eternal unchange-
able rule of righteousness, if it do not in the substance of it an-
swer thereto, a righteousness it is not. But this it does in as
much, as that so far as it is habitual, it consists in the renova-
tion of the image of God, wherein that law is written in our
hearts; and all the actual duties of it are as to the substance of
them, what is required by that law. But as to the maiuier of
its com.munication to us, and of its performance by us from
faith in God by Jesus Christ, and love to him, as the author
and fountain of all the grace and mercy procured and adminis-
tered by him, it has respect to the gospel. What will follow
from hence? why that lie is just who does those things which
that law requires whereby he is to be judged. He is so cer-
tainly. For " not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified," Rom. ii. 13. "So
Moses describeth the righteousness of the law, that the man
that doth those things shall live in them," Rom. x. 5. But
although the righteousness whereof we discourse, be required
by the law, as certainly it is, lor it is nothing but the law in
our hearts, from whence we walk in the ways and keep the
264 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
Statutes or commandments of God; yet does it not so answer
the law, as that any man can be justified by it. But then it
will be said, that if it does not answer that law and rule where-
by we are to be judged, then it is no righteousness; for all
righteousness must answer the law whereby it is required.
And I say it is most true, it is no perfect righteousness; it does
not so answer the rule and law, so that we can be justified by
it, or safely judged on it. But so far as it does answer the
law, it is a righteousness, that is, imperfectly so, and therefore
is an imperfect righteousness; which yet gives the denomina-
tion of righteous to them that have it, both absolutely and
comparatively. It is said therefore, " that it is the law of grace
or the gospel from whence we are denominated righteous with
this righteousness." But that we are by the gospel denomi-
nated righteous from any righteousness that is not required by
the moral law, will not be proved. Nor does the law of grace
or the gospel any where require of us, or prescribe to us this
righteousness, as that whereon we are to be justified before
God. It requires faith in Christ Jesus, or the receiving of him
as he is proposed in the promises of it, in all that are to be
justified. It requires in like manner repentance from dead
works in all that believe; as also the fruits of faith, conversion
to God, and repentance, in the works of righteousness, which
are to the praise of God by Jesus Christ; with perseverance
therein to the end. And all this may, if you please, be called
our evangelical righteousness, as being our obedience to God
according to the gospel. But yet the graces and duties where-
in it consists, do no more perfectly answer the commands of
the gospel, than they do those of the moral law. For that the
gospel abates from the holiness of the law, and makes*that to
be no sin which is sin by the law, or approves absolutely of
less intention or lower degrees in the love of God, than the
law does, is an impious imagination.
And that the gospel requires all these things entirely and
equally, as the condition of our justification before God, and so
antecedently thereto, is not yet proved, nor ever will be. It is
hence concluded, " that this is our righteousness, according to
the evangelical law which requires it: by this we are made
righteous, that is, not guilty of the non-performance of the con-
dition required in that law." And these things are said to be
" very plain." So no doubt they seemed to the author; to us
they are intricate and perplexed. However, I wholly deny
that our faith, obedience, and righteousness, considered as ours,
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 265
as wrought by us, although they are all accepted with God
through Jesus Christ according to the grace declared in the gos-
pel, do perfectly answer the commands of the gospel, requiring
them of us, as to matter, manner, and degree; and therefore it
is utterly impossible that they should be the cause or condition
of our justification before God. Yet in the explanation of these
things, it is added by the same author, " that our maimed and
imperfect righteousness is accepted to salvation, as if it were
every way absolute and perfect; for that so it should be, Christ
has merited by his most perfect righteousness." But it is jus-
tification alone and not salvation that we discourse about; and
that the works of obedience or righteousness, have another
respect to salvation, than they have to justification, is too plainly
and too often expressed in the Scripture, to be modestly denied.
And if this weak and imperfect righteousness of ours, be es-
teemed and accepted as every way perfect before God, then
either it is because God judges it to be perfect, and so declares
us to be- most just, and justified thereon in his sight, or he
judges it not to be complete and perfect, yet declares us to be
perfectly righteous in his sight thereby. Neither of these I sup-
pose can well be granted. It will therefore be said, it is neither
of them; but "Christ has obtained by his complete and most
perfect righteousness and obedience, that this lame and imper-
fect righteousness of ours should be accepted as every way
perfect." And if it be so, it may be some will think it best not
to go about by this weak, halt, and imperfect righteousness,
but as to their justification betake themselves immediately to
the most perfect righteousness of Christ, which I am sure the
Scripture encourages them to. And they will be ready to think,
that the righteousness which cannot justify itself, but must be
obliged to grace and pardon through the merits of Christ, will
never be able to justify them. But what will ensue on this
explanation of the acceptance of our imperfect righteousness
to justification upon the merit of Christ? This only so far as
I can discern, that Christ has merited and procnred, either that
God should judge that to be perfect which is imperfect, and de-
clare us perfectly righteous when we are not so, or that he
should judge the righteousness still to be imperfect (as it is) but
declare us to be perfectly righteous with and by this imperfect
righteousness. These are the plain paths that men walk in,
who cannot deny but that there is a righteousness required to
our justification, or that we may be declared righteous before
God, in the sight of God, according to the judgment of God,
23
266 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
yet denying the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us,
will allow of no other righteousness to this end, but that which
is so weak and imperfect as that no man can justify it in his
own conscience, nor without a phrensy of pride, can think or
imagine himself perfectly righteous thereby.
And whereas it is added, that " he is blind who sees not that
this righteousness of ours is subordinate to the righteousness
of Christ," I must acknowledge myself otherwise minded, not-
withstanding the severity of this censure. It seems to me that
the righteousness of Christ is subordinate to this righteousness
of our own, as here it is stated, and not the contrary. For the
end of all is our acceptance with God as righteous. But ac-
cording to these thoughts, it is our own righteousnesses where-
on we are immediately accepted with God as righteous. Only
Christ has deserved by his righteousness, that our righteous-
ness may be so accepted, and is therefore as to the end of our
justification before God, subordinate thereto.
But to return from this digression, and to proceed to our
argument; this personal inherent righteousness which accord-
ing to the Scripture we allow in believers, is not that whereby,
or wherewith, we are justified before God. For it is not per-
fect, nor perfectly answers any rule of obedience that is given
to us, and so cannot be our righteousness before God to our
justification. Wherefore we must be justified by the righteous-
ness of Christ imputed to us, or be justified without respect to
any righteousness, or not be justified at all. And a threefold
imperfection accompanies it.
First, as to the principle of it, as it is habitually resident in
us. For (1) There is a contrary principle of sin abiding with
it in the same subject whilst we are in this world. For con-
trary qualities may be in the same subject whilst neither of
them is in the highest degree. So it is in this case. Gal. v. 17.
" For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the flesh, and these are contrary one to the other, so that ye
cannot do the things that ye would." (2) None of the faculties
of our souls are perfectly renewed whilst we are in this world.
"The inward man is renewed day by day," 2 Cor. iv. 16.
And we are always to be purging ourselves from all pollution
of flesh and spirit, 2 Cor. vii. 1. And hereto belongs whatever
is spoken in the Scripture, whatever believers find in them-
selves by experience of the remainders of indwelling sin, in
the darkness of our minds, whence at best we know but in
part, and through ignorance are ready to wander out of the
Af
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 267
way, Heb. v. 2; in the deceitfiilness of the heart, and disorder
of affections, I understand not how any one can think of plead-
ing his own righteousness in the sight of God, or suppose that
he can be justified by it upon this single account of the imper-
fection of its inherent habit or principle. Such notions arise
from the ignorance of God and ourselves, or the want of a due
consideration of the one and the other. Neither can I appre-
hend how a thousand distinctions can safely introduce it into
any place or consideration in our justification before God. He
that can search in any measure by a spiritual light into his own
heart and soul, will find, " God be merciful to me a sinner," a
better plea than any he can be furnished with from any worth
of his own. " What is man that he should be clean, and he
that is born of a woman that he should be righteous?" Job. xv.
14 — 16; xviii. 19. Hence says Gregory in Job ix. lib. 9. cap. 14.
Ut ssepe dixhnus, omnisjustitia hinnana injustitia esse con-
vincitiir si distincte judicetur. Bernard speaks to the same
purpose, and almost in the same words, Serm. fest. omn. sanct.
Quid potest esse omnis humana justitia coram Deo? nonne
juxta prophetani, velut pannus rnenstrnatus reputabitur; et
si distinctf' judicetur, injustitia invenietur omnis justitia nos-
tra et m,inus habens. A man cannot be justified in any sense
by that righteousness which upon trial will appear rather to be
an unrighteousness.
2. It is imperfect with respect to every act and duty of it,
whether internal or external. There is iniquity cleaving to our
holy things, and "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,"
Isa. Ixiv. 8. It has been often and well observed, that if a
man, the best of men, were left to choose the best of his works
that ever he performed, and thereon to enter into judgment
with God, if only under this notion, that he has answered and
fulfilled tlie condition required of him, as to his acceptance
witli God, it would be his wisest course, (at least it would be
so in the judgment of Bellarmine) to renounce it, and betake
himself to grace and mercy alone.
3. It is imperfect by reason of the incursion of actual sins.
Hence our Saviour has taught us continually to pray for the
forgiveness of our sins; and " if we say, that we have no sin
we deceive ourselves;" for "in many things we offend all."
And what confidence can be placed in this righteousness, which
those who plead for it in this cause, acknowledge to be weak,
maimed, and imperfect.
I have but touched on these things, which might have been
268 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
handled at large, and are indeed of great consideration in our
present argument. But enough has been spoken to manifest,
that although this righteousness of believers be on other ac-
counts like the fruit of the vine, that "glads the heart of God
and man," yet as to our justification before God, it is like the
wood of the vine, a pin is not to be taken from it to hang any
weight of this cause upon.
Two things are pleaded in the behalf of this righteousness
and its influence on our justification. (1) That it is abso-
lutely complete and perfect. Hence some say that they are
perfect and sinless in this life. They have no more concern in
the mortification of sin, and growth in grace. And indeed this
is the only rational pretence of ascribing our justification before
God thereto. For were it so with any, what should hinder
him from being justified thereon before God, but only that he
has been a sinner, which spoils the whole market? But this
vain imagination is so contrary to the Scripture, and the expe-
rience of all that know the terror of the Lord, and what it is to
Avalk humbly before him, that I shall not insist on the refuta-
tion of it. (2) It is pleaded, that although this righteousness
be not an exact fulfilling of the moral law, yet is it the accom-
plishment of the condition of the new covenant, or entirely an-
swers the law of grace, and all that is required of us therein.
Ans. 1. This wholly takes away sin and the pardoii of it,
no less than does the conceit of sinless perfection which we
now rejected. For if our obedience answer the only law and
rule of it whereby it is to be tried, measured and judged, then
is there no sin in us nor need of pardon. No more is required
of any man to keep him absolutely free from sin, but that he
fully answer, and exactly comply with the rule and law of his
obedience whereby he must be judged. On this supposition
therefore there is neither sin, nor any need of the pardon of it.
To say that there is still both sin, and need of pardon with re-
spect to the moral law of God, is to confess that law to be the
rule of our obedience, which this righteousness no way an-
swers; and therefore none by it can be justified in the sight of
God.
2. Although this righteousness he accepted in justified per-
sons by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet consider the
principle of it, with all the acts and duties wherein it consists,
as they are required and prescribed in the gos:pel to us, and
they do neither jointly nor severally fulfil and answer the com-
mands of the gospel, no more than they do the commands of
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 269
the law. Wherefore they cannot all of them constitute a right-
eousness consisting in an exact conformity to the rules of the
gospel, or the law of it. For it is impious to imagine that the
gospel requiring any duty of us, suppose the love, of God,
makes any abatement, as to the matter, manner, or degrees of
perfection in it, from what was required by the law. Does
the gospel require a lower degree of love to God, a less perfect
love than the law did? God forbid. The same may be said
concerning the inward frame of our natures, and all other
duties whatever; wherefore although this righteousness is ac-
cepted in justified persons, (as God had respect to Abel, and
then to his offering) in the way and to the ends that shall be
afterwards declared; yet as it relates to the commands of the
gospel, both it and all the duties of it, are no less imperfect,
than it would be, if it should be left to its trial by the law of
creation only.
3. I know not what some men intend. On the one hand
they affirm that our Lord Jesus Christ has enlarged and height-
ened the spiritual sense of the moral law, and not gnly so, but
added to it new precepts of more exact obedience than' it
required. But on the other they would have him to have
brought down or taken off the obligation of the law, so that a
man, according as he has adapted it to the use of the gospel,
shall be judged of God to have fulfilled the whole obedience
which it requires, who never answered any one precept of if
according to its original sense and obligation. For so it must
be, if this imperfect righteousness he on any account esteemed
a fulfilling of the rule of our obedience, so that thereon we
should be justified in the sight of God.
4. This opinion puts an irreconcilable difference between the
law and the gospel, not to be composed by any distinctions.
For according to it, God declares by the gospel a man to be
perfectly righteous, justified and blessed, upon the considera-
tion of a righteousness that is imperfect; and in the law he
pronounces every one accursed who continues not in all things
required by it, and as they are therein required. But it is said
that this righteousness is not otherwise to be considered, but
as the condition of the new covenant whereon we obtain re-
mission of sins on the sole account of the satisfaction of Christ
wherein our justification consists.
Ans. 1. Some indeed do say so, but not all, not the most,
not the most leariied with whom in this controversy we have
to do. And in our pleas for what we believe to be the truth,
270 ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY THE
we cannot always have respect to every private opinion where-
by it is opposed. (2) That justification consists only in the
pardon of sin, is so contrary to the signification of the word,
the constant use of it in the Scripture, the common notion of it
amongst mankind, the sense of men in their own consciences
who find themselves under an obligation to duty, and express
testimonies of the Scripture, that I somewhat wonder, how it
can be pretended. But it shall be spoken to elsewhere. (3) If
this righteousness be the fulfilling of the condition of the new
covenant'wherepn we are justified, it must be in itself such as
exactly answers some rule or law of righteousness, and so be
perfect, which it does not; and therefore cannot bear the place
of a'righteousness in our justification, (4) That this righteous-
ness is the condition of our justification before God, or of that
jnterest m the righteousness of Christ whereby we are justified,
is not proved, nor ever will be.
I shall briefly add two or three considerations excluding this
personal righteousness from its pretended interest in our justi-
fication, and cibse. ihis argument.
1. That righteousness which neither answers the law of God,
nor the end'pf God in our justification by the gospel, is not that
whereon we'are justified. But such is this inherent righteous-
ness of believers, even of the best of them. (1) That it answers
not ihe law of God has been proved from its imperfection,
^or will any sober person pretend that it exactly and perfectly
fulfils;t^he law of our creation. And this law cannot be dis-
annulled whilst the relation of creator and re warder on the one
hand, and of creatures capable of obedience and rewards on
the other, continues. Wherefore that which answers not this
law will not justify us. For God will not abrogate that law, that
the transgressors of it may be justified. " Do we," saith the
Apostle (l)y the doctrine of justification by faith without works)
" make void the law? God forbid; yea, we establish it," Rom.
iii. 31. (2) That we should be justified with respect to it, an-
swers not the end of God in our justification by the gospel.
For this is to take away all glorying in ourselves, and all occa-
sion of it, every thing that might give countenance to it, so
that the whole might he to the praise of his own grace by
Christ, Rom. iii. 27; 1 Cor. i. 29 — 31. How it is faith alone that
gives glory to God herein, has been declared in the description
of its nature. But it is evident that no man has, or can have
possibly any other, any greater occasion of boasting in himself,
with respect to his justification, than that he is justified on his
IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. 271
performance of that condition of it, which consists in his own
personal righteousness.
2. No man was ever justified by it in his own conscience,
much less can he be justified by it in the sight of God. For God
is greater than our hearts and knows all things. There is no
man so righteous, so holy in the whole world, nor ever was,
but his own conscience would charge him in many things with
his coming short of the obedience required of him, in matter or
manner, in the kind or degrees of perfection. For " there is no
man that liveth and sinneihnot." Absolutely Nemo absolvitiir
sejudice. Let any man be put to a trial in himself whether he
can be justified in his own conscience, by his own righteous-
ness, and he will be cast in the trial at his own judgment-seat.
And he that does not thereon conclude, that there must be
another righteousness whereby he must be justified, that origi-
nahy and inherently is not his own, will be at a loss for peace
with God. But it will be said, that men may be justified in
their consciences, that they have performed the condition of
the new covenant, which is all that is pleaded with respect to
this righteousness. And I no way doubt but that men may
have a comfortable persuasion of their own sincerity in obe-
dience, and satisfaction in the acceptance of it with God. But
it is when they try it, as an effect of faith, whereby they are
justified, and not as the condition of their justification. Let it
be thus stated in their minds that God requires a personal right-
eousness in order to then- justification, whereon their determi-
nation must be, this is my righteousness which I present to
God that I may be justified, and they will find difficulty in ar-
riving at it, if i be not much mistaken.
3. None of the holy men of old/.whose faith and experience
are recorded in the Scripture, did ever plead their own per-
sonal righteousness under any notion of it, either as to the
merit of their works, or as to their complete performance of
■ Avhat was required of them as the condition of the covenant in
..^order to their justification before God. This has been spoken
" to before.
%'
272 THE NATURE OF THE OBEDIENCE
CHAPTER XL
THE NATURE OF THE OBEDIENCE THAT GOD REQUIRES OF US. THE
ETERNAL OBLIGATION OF THE LAW THERETO.
Our second argument shall be taken from the nature of that
obedience or righteousness which God requires of us, that we
may be accepted of liim and approved by him. This being a
large subject if fully to be handled, I shall reduce what is of
our present concernment in it to some special heads or obser-
vations,
1. God being a most perfect, and therefore a most free agent,
all his actings towaj-ds mankind, all his dealings with them, all
his constitutions and laws concerning them, are to be resolved
into his own sovereign will and pleasure. No other reason can
be given of the original, of the whole system of them. This
the Scripture testifies to, Psal. cxv. 3; cxxxv, 6; Prov. xvi. 4;
Ephes. i. 9, 11; Rev. iv. 11. The being, existence, and natu-
ral circumstances of all creatures, being an effect of the free
counsel and pleasure of God, all that belongs to them must be
ultimately resolved thereinto.
2. Upon a supposition of some free acts of the will of God
and the execution of them, constituting an order in the things
that outwardly are of him, and their mutual respect to one
another, some things may become necessary in this relative
state, whose beii]g was not absolutely necessary in its own
nature. The order of all things and their mutual respect to
one another, depends on God's free constitution, no less than
their being absolutely. But upon a supposition of that consti-
tution, thmgs have in. that order, a necessary relation one to
another, and all of them to God. Wherefore
3. It was a free sovereign act of God's will to create, effect
or produce such a creature as man is; that is, of a nature intel-
ligent, rational, capable of moral obedience with rewards and
punishments. But on asupposition hereof, man so freely made,
could not be governed any other ways but by a moral instru-
ment of law or rule, influencing the rational faculties of his soul
to obedieu'ce, and guiding him therein. He could not in that
constitution be contained under the rule of God, by a mere
physical influence, as are all irrational or brute creatures. To
suppose it, is to deny or destroy the essential faculty and
THAT GOD REQUIRES OF US. 273
powers wherewith he was created. Wherefore on the suppo-
sition of his being, it was necessary that a law or rule of obe-
dience should be prescribed to liim, and be the instrument of
God's government towards him.
4. This necessary law, so far forth as it was necessary, did
immediately and unavoidably ensue upon the constitution of
our natures in relation to God. Supposing the nature, being,
and properties of God, with the works of creation on the one
hand; and supposing the being, existence, and the nature of
man, with his necessary relation to God, on the other, the law
•whereof we speak is nothing but the rule of that relation, which
can neitlier be, nor be preserved, without it. Hence is this law
eternal, indispensable, admitting of no other variation, than
does the relation between God and man, which necessarily
arises from their distinct natures and properties.
5. The substance of this law was, that man adhering to God,
absolutely, universally, unchangeably, uninterruptedly, in trust,
love, and fear, as the chiefest good, the first Author of his be-
ing, of all the present and future advantages whereof it was
capable, should yield obedience to him, with respect to his in-
finite wisdom, righteousness and almighty power, to protect,
reward, and punish, in all things known to be his will and
pleasure, either by the light of his own mind, or especial reve-
lation made to him. And it is evident that no more is required
to the constitution and establishment of this law, but that God
be God, and man be man, with the necessary relation that nuist
thereon ensue between them. Wherefore
6. This law eternally and unchangeably obliges all men to
obedience to God; even that obedience which it requires, and
in the manner wherein it requires it. For both the substance
of what it requires, and the manner of the performance of it,
as to measures and degrees, are equally necessary and unalter-
able, upon the suppositions laid down. For God cannot deny
himself, nor is the nature of man changed as to the essence of
it whereto alone respect is had in this law, by any thing that
can fall out. And although God might superadd to the original
obligations of this law, what arbitrary commands he pleased,
such as did not necessarily proceed or arise from the relation
between him and us,, which might be, and be continued, with-
out them; yet would they be resolved into that principle of
this law, that God in all things was absolutely to be trusted
and obeyed.
7. "Known unto God are all his works from the foundation
274 THE NATURE OF THE OBEDIENCE
of the world." In the constitution of this order of things he
made it possible, and foresaw it would be future, that man
would rebel against the preceptive power of this law, and dis-
turb that order of thmgs wherein he was placed under his mo-
ral rule. This gave occasion to that effect of infinite divine
righteousness, in constituting the punishment that man should
fall under upon his transgression of this law. Neither was this
an effect of arbitrary will and pleasure, any more than the law
itself was. Upon the supposition of the creation of man, the
law mentioned was necessary from all the divine properties of
the nature of God ; and upon a supposition that man would
transgress that law, God being now considered as his ruler and
governor, the constitution of the punishment due to his sin and
transgression of it, was a necessary effect of divine righteous-
ness. This it would not have been, had the law itself been
arbitrary. But that being necessary, so was the penalty of its
transgression. Wherefore the constitution of this penalty, is
liable to no more change, alteration, or abrogation, than the
law itself, without an alteration in the state and relation be-
tween God and man.
S. This is that law, which our Lord Jesus Christ came not to
destroy, bat to fulfil, that he might be the end of it for right-
eousness to them that beheve. This law he abrogated not, nor
could do so without a destruction of the relation that is be-
tween God and man, arising from or ensuing necessarily on
their distinct beings and properties. But as this cannot be de-
stroyed, so the Lord Christ came to a contrary end ; namely,
to repair and restore it where it was weakened. Wherefore
9. This law, the law of sinless perfect obedience, with its
sentence of the punishment of death on all transgressors, does
and must abide in force for ever in this world; for there is no
more required hereto, but that God be God, and man be man.
Yet shall this be further proved.
1. There is nothing, not one word in the Scripture intimating
any alteration in, or abrogation of this law; so that any thing
should not be duty which it makes to be duty, or any thing not
be sin, which it makes to be sin, either as to matter or degrees;
or that the thing which it makes to be sin, or which is sin by
the rule of it, should not merit and deserve that punishment
which is declared in the sanction of it, or threatened by it.
"The wages of sin is death." If any testimony of Scripture
can be produced to either of these purposes, namely, that either
any thing is not sin, in the way of omission or commission, in
r
THAT GOD REaUIRES OF US. 275
the matter or manner of its performance, which is made to be
so by this law. or that any such sin, or any thing that would
have been sin by this law, is exempted from the punishment
threatened by it, as to merit or desert, it shall be attended to.
It is therefore in universal force towards all mankind. There
is no relief in this case; but " Behold the Lamb of God."
In exception hereto it is pleaded, that when it was first given
to Adam, it was the rule and instrument of a covenant between
God and man, a covenant of works and perfect obedience. But
upon the entrance of sin, it ceased to have the nature of a co-
venant to any. And it has so ceased, that on an impossible
supposition, that any man should fulfil the perfect righteous-
ness of it, yet should he not be justified or obtain the benefit
of the covenant thereby. It is not therefore only become inef-
fectual to us as a covenant by reason of our weakness and dis-
ability to perform it, but it has ceased in its own nature so to
be. But these things as they are not to our present purpose, so
are they wholly unproved. For
1. Our discourse is not about the federal adjunct of the law,
but about its moral nature only. It is enough, that as a law,
it continues to oblige all mankind to perfect obedience under
its original penalty. For hence it will unavoidably follow, that
unless the commands of it be complied with and fulfilled, the
penalty will fall on all that transgress it. And those who grant
that this lav/ is still in force as to its being a rule of obedience,
or as to its requiring duties of us, grant all that we desire. For
it requires no obedience, but what it did in its original constitu-
tion, that is, sinless and perfect; and it requires no duty, nor
prohibits any sin, but under the penalty of death upon disobe-
dience.
2. It is true, tliat he who is once a sinner, if he should after-
wards yield all (hat perfect obedience to God that the law re-
quires, could not thereby obtain the benefit of the promise of
the covenant. But the sole reason of it is, because he is antece-
dently a sinner, and so obnoxious to the curse of the law. And
no man can be obnoxious to its curse, and have a right to its
promise at the same time. But so to lay the supposition, that
the same person is by any means free from the curse due to
sin, and then to deny that, upon the performance of that perfect
sinless obedience which the law requires, he should not have
right to the promise of life thereby, is to deny the truth of
God, and to reflect the highest dishonour upon his justice.
Jesus Christ himself was justified by this law. And it is im-
276
THE NATURE OF THE OBEDIENCE
mutably true, that " he who doth the things of it shall live
therein."
3. It is granted, that man continued not in the observance
of this law, as it was the rule of the covenant between God
and him. It was not the covenant, but the rule of it, and its
being such was superadded to its being as a law. For the cove-
nant comprised things that were not any part of a result from
the necessary relation of God and man. Wherefore man by
his sin as to demerit, may be said to break this covenant, and
as to any benefit to himself to disannul it. It is also true, that
God did never formally and absolutely renew or give again this
law as a covenant a second time. Nor was there any need that
so he should do, unless it were declaratively only, for so it was
renewed at Sinai. For the whole of it being an emanation of
eternal right and truth, it abides and must abide in full force
forever. Wherefore it is only thus far broken as a covenant,
that all mankind, having sinned against the commands of it,
and so by guilt with the impotency to obedience which ensued
thereon, defeated themselves of any interest in its promise, and
possibility of attaining any such interest, cannot have any bene-
fit by it. But as to its power to oblige all mankind to obe-
dience, and the unchangeable truth of its promises and threat-
enings, it abides the same as it was from the beginning.
2dly, Take away this law, and there is left no standard of
righteousness to mankind, no certain boundaries of good and
evil, but those pillars whereon God has fixed the earth are left
to move and float up and down like the isle of Delos in the sea.
Some say, the rule of good and evil to men is not this law in
its original constitution, but the light of natiu'e, and the dic-
tates of reason. If they mean that light which was primoge-
nial and concreated with our natures, and those dictates of
right and wrong which reason originally suggested and approv-
ed, they only say in other words, that this law is still the unal-
terable rule of obedience to all mankind. But if they intend
the remaining light of nature that continues in every individual
in this depraved state thereof, and that under such additional
depravations as traditions, customs, prejudices, and lusts of all
sorts, have affixed to the most, there is nothing more irrational,
and it is that which is charged with no less inconvenience than
that it leaves no certain boundaries of good and evil. That
which is good to one, will on this ground be in its own nature
evil to another, and so on the contrary; and all the idolaters
that ever were in the world might on this pretence be excused.
THAT GOD REQUIRES OP US. 277
3dly, Conscience bears witness hereto. There is no good
nor evil required or forbidden by this law, that upon the dis-
covery of it, any man in the world can persuade or bribe his
conscience not to comply with it in judgment, as to his con-
cernment therein. It will accuse and excuse, condemn and free
him, according to the sentence of this law, let him do what he
can to the contrary.
In brief it is acknowledged, that God by virtue of his su-
preme dominion over all, may in some instances change the
nature and order of things, so that the precepts of the divine
law shall not in them operate in their ordinary efficacy. So
was it in the case of his command to Abraham to slay his son,
and to the Israelites to rob the Egyptians. But on a supposi-
tion of the continuance of that order of things which this law
is the preservative of, such is the intrinsic nature of the good
and evil commanded and forbidden therein, that it is not the
subject of divine dispensation, as even the schoolmen generally
grant.
10. From what we have discoursed, two things unavoidably
ensue.
1. That whereas all mankind have by sin fallen under the
penalty threatened to the transgression of this law; and suffer-
ing of this penalty which is eternal death, being inconsistent
with acceptance before God, or the enjoyment of blessedness,
it is utterly impossible that any one individual of the posterity
of Adam should be justified in the sight of God, accepted with
him or blessed by him, unless this penalty be answered, un-
dergone, and suffered by them or for them; the Sixaiojua t-ooj
@sov herein is not to be abolished but established.
2. That to the same end of acceptance with God, justification
before him and blessedness from him, the righteousness of this
eternal law must be fulfilled in us, in such a way, that in the
judgment of God which is according to truth, we maybe es-
teemed to have fulfilled it, and be dealt with accordingly. For
upon a supposition of a failure herein, the sanction of the law
is not arbitrary, so that the penalty may or may not be inflict-
ed, but necessary from the righteousness of God as the supreme
governor of all.
11. About the first of these our controversy is with the So-
cinians only, who deny the satisfaction of Clirist, and any ne-
cessity thereof Concerning this I have treated elsewhere at
large, and expect not to see an answer to what I have disputed
on that subject. As to the latter of them, we must inquire how
24
278 THE NATUSE OF THE OBEDIENCE
we may be supposed to comply with the rule, and answer the
righteousness of this unalterable law, whose authority we can
no way be exempted from. And that which we plead is, that
the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to us; his
obedience as the surety of the new covenant, granted to us,
made ours by the gracious constitution, sovereign appointment
and donation of God, is that whereon we are judged and es-
teemed to have answered the righteousness of the law. " By
the obedience of one many are made righteous." Rom. v. 19.
" That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,"
Rom. viii. 4. And hence we argue,
If there be no other way whereby the righteousness of the
law may be fulfilled in us, without which we cannot be justi-
fied, but must fall inevitably under the penalty threatened to
the transgression of it, but only the righteousness of Christ im-
puted to us, then is that the sole righteousness whereby we
are justified in the sight of God; but the former is true, and so
therefore is the latter.
12. On the supposition of this law, and its original obliga-
tion to obedience with its sanction and threatenings, there can
be but one of three ways whereby we may come to be justified
before God, who have sinned, and are no way able in ourselves
to perform the obedience for the future which it requires. And
each of them has a respect to a sovereign act of God with re-
ference to this law. The first is the abrogation of it, that it
should no more oblige us either to obedience or punishment.
This we have proved impossible; and they will wofully deceive
their own souls, who shall trust to it. The second is by trans-
ferring of its obligation to the end of justification on a surety or
common undertaker. This is that which we plead for, as the
substance of the mystery of the gospel, considering the person
and grace of this undertaker or surety. And herein all things
tend to the exaltation of the glory of God in all the holy pro-
perties of his nature, with the fulfilling and establishing of the
law itself, Matt. v. 17. Rom. iii. 31; viii. 4; x. 3, 4. The
third way is by an act of God towards the law, and another
towards us, whereby the nature of the righteousness which the
law requires is changed; which we shall examine as the only
reserve against our present argument.
13. It is said, therefore, that by our own personal obedience
we answer the righteousness of the law so far as it is required
of us. But whereas no sober person can imagine that we can,
or that any one in our lapsed condition ever did yield in our
THAT GOD KEaUIRES OF Us, 279
own persons that perfect sinless obedience to God which is re-
quired of us in the law of creation, two things are supposed,
that our obedience, such as it is, may be accepted with God as
if it were sinless and perfect. For although some will not allow
that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for for what it
is, yet they contend that our own righteousness is imputed to
us for what it is not. Of these things the one respects the law.
tlie other our obedience.
14, That which respects the law is not the abrogation of it.
For although this would seem the most expeditious way for
the reconciliation of this difficulty, namely, that the law of
creation is utterly abrogated by the gospel, both as to its obli-
gation to obedience and punishment; and no law to be con-
tinued in force but that which requires only sincere obedience
of us, whereof there is, as to the manner of the performance
of duties, not any absolute rule or measure, yet this is not by
many pretended. They say not that this law is so abrogated,
as that it should not have the power and efficacy of a law to-
wards us. Nor is it possible it should be so; nor can any pre-
tence be given how it should so be. It is true, it was broken
by man, is so by us all, and that with respect to its principal
end of our subjection to God, and dependence upon him, ac-
cording to the rule of it. But it is foolish to think that the fault
of those to whom a righteous law is rightly given, should abro-
gate or disannul the law itself. A law that is good and just
may cease and expire as to any power of obligation upon the
ceasing or expiration of the relation which it respected. So the
Apostle tells us, that when the husband of a woman is dead,
she is free from the law of her husband, Rom. vii. 2. But the
relation between God and us, which was constituted in our first
creation, can never cease. But a law cannot be abrogated
without a new law given, and made by the same, or an equal
power that made it, either expressly revoking it, or enjoining
things inconsistent with it, and contradictory to its observation.
In the latter way the law of Mosaical institutions was abro-
gated and disannulled. There was not any positive law made
for the taking of it away; but the constitution and introduction
of a new way of worship by the gospel inconsistent with it,
and contrary to it, deprived it of all its obligatory power and
efficacy. But neither of these ways has God taken away the
obligation of the original law of obedience, either as to duties
or recompenses of reward. Neither is there any direct law
made for its abrogation; nor has he given any new law of mo-
280
THE NATURE OF THE OBEDIENCE
ral obedience either inconsistent with, or contrary to it. Yea
in the gospel it is declared to be established and fulfilled.
It is true, as was observed before, that this law was made
the instrument of a covenant between God and man; and so
there is another reason of it; for God has actually introduced
another covenant inconsistent with it, and contrary to it.
But yet neither does this instantly and ipso facto free all men
from the law, in the way of a covenant. For to the obliga-
tion of a law there is no more required, but that the matter
of it be just and righteous, that it be given or made by him
who has just authority so to give or make it, and be suffi-
ciently declared to them who are to be obliged by it. Hence
the making and promulgation of a new law, does ipso facto
abrogate any former law that is contrary to it, and frees all
men from obedience to it, who were before obliged by it. But
in a covenant it is not so. For a covenant does not operate
by mere sovereign authority; it becomes not a covenant with-
out the consent of them with whom it is made. Wherefore
no benefit accrues to any, or freedom from the old covenant,
by the constitution of the new, unless he has actually com-
plied with it, has chosen it, and is interested in it thereby.
The first covenant made with Adam, we did in him consent
to, and accept of. And therein notwithstanding our sin, do
we and must we abide, that is, under the obligation of it to
duty and punishment, until by faith we are made partakers of
the new. It cannot therefore be said, that we are not con-
cerned in the fulfilling of the righteousness of this law, be-
cause it is abrogated.
15. Nor can it be said that the law has received a new
interpretation^ whereby it is declared, that it does not oblige,
nor shall be construed for the future to oblige any to sinless
and perfect obedience, but may be complied with on far easier
terms. For the law being given to us when we were sinless,
and on purpose to continue and preserve us in that condition,
it is absurd to say that it did not oblige us to sinless obedience;
and not an interpretation, but a plain perversion of its sense
and meaning. Nor is any such thing once intimated in the
gospel. Yea the discourses of our Saviour upon the law,.^re
absolutely destructive of any such imagination. For wl>*»"se^s
the Scribes and Pharisees had attempted by their false glosses
and interpretations to accommodate the law to the inclinations"
and lusts of men, (a course since pursued both notionally and
practically, as all who design to burden the consciences of
THAT GOD REQUIRES OF US, 281
men with their own commands endeavour constantly to re-
compense them, by an indulgence with respect to the com-
mands of God;) he on the contrary rejects all such pretended
accommodations and interpretations, restoring the law to its
pristine crown, as the Jews, tradition is, that the Messiah
shall do.
16. Nor can a relaxation of the law be pretended, if there
be any such thing in rule. For if there be, it respects the whole
being of the law, and consists either in the suspension of its
whole obligation, at least for a seastan, or the substitution of
another person to answer its demands, who was not in the
original obligation, in the room of them that were. For so
some say, that the Lord Christ was made under the law for
us by an act of relaxation of the original obligation of the law;
how properly, let them see to it. But herein no sense it can
have place. ^ , «
17. The act of God towards the law iri this case intended,
is a derogation from its obliging power as to obedience. For
whereas it originally obliged to perfect sinless obedience, in
all duties, both as to their substance, and the manner of their
performance, it shall be allowed to oblige us still to obedience,
but not to that which is absolutely the same, especially ijot as
to the completeness and perfection of it. For if it do so, either
it is fulfilled in the righteousness ©f Christ for us, or no man
living can ever be justified in the sight of God. Wherefore by
an act of derogation from its original power, it is provided,
that it shall oblige us still to obedience, but not that which is
absolutely sinless and perfect; but although it be performed
with less intention of love to God, or in a lower degree, than
it did at first require, so it be sincere and universal as to all the
parts of it, it is all that the law now requires of us. This is alt
that it now requires, as it is adapted to the service of the new
covenant, and made the rule of obedience according to the law
of Christ. Hereby is its perceptive part, so far as v/e are
concerned in it, answered and complied v/ith. Whether these
things are so or no, we shall see immediately in a few words.
18. Hence it follows, that the act of God with respect to
our obedience, is not an act of judgment according to any rule
or law of his own ; but an esteeming, accounting, accepting
that as perfect or in the room of that which is perfect, which
really and in truth is not so.
19. It is added that both these depend on, and are the pro-
curements of the obedience, sutfering, and merits of Christ.
24*
li
282 THE NATURE OF THE OBEDIENCE
For oa their account it is, that our weak and imperfect obe-
dience is accepted as if it were perfect, and the power of the
law, to require obedience absolutely perfect is taken away.
And these being the effects of the righteousness of Christ, that
righteousness may on their account, and so far, be said to be
imputed to us.
20. But notwithstanding the great endeavours that have
been used to give a colour of truth to these things, they are
both of them but fictions andjmaginationsof men that have no
ground in the Scripture^ nor comply with the experience of
them that believe.
For to touch a little on the latter, in the first place; there is
no true believer but has these two things fixed in his mind
giud conscience.
.(1.) .Xhatnhere.is nothing in principles, habits, qualities, or
actions, wherein he. comes 'Short of a perfect compliance with
the holy law of Gbcl,even as it required perfect obedience, but
that it has in it the nature of sin, and that in itself deserving the
curse annexed originally to the breach of that law. They do not
therefore apprehend that its obligation is taken off, weakened
or derogated from in any thing. (2) Tliat there is no relief for
him, with respect. to what the law requires, or to what it
threatens, but by the mediation of Jesus Christ alone, who of
God is made righteousne^ to him. Wherefore they do not.
rest in, or on the acceptance of their own obedience such as.
it is, to answer the law, but trust to Christ alone for their ac-
ceptance with God.
21. They are both of them doctrinally untrue; for as to the
former; (1) It is unwritten. There is no intimation in the Scrip-
ture of any such dispensation of God with reference to the origi-
nal law of obedience. Much is spoken of our deliverance from
the curse of the law by Christ, but of the abatement of its pre-
ceptive power nothing at all. (2) It is contrary to the Scrip-
ture. For it is plainly affirmed that the law is not to be abol-
ished, but fulfilled; not to be made void, but to be established;
that the righteousness of it must be fulfilled in us. (3) It is a
supposition both unreasonable and injpossible. For (1) the
law was a representation to us of the holiness of God, and his
righteousness in the government of his creatures. There can
be no alteration made herein, seeing with God himself there is
no variableness nor shadow of changing. (2) It would leave
no standard of righteousness, but only a Lesbian rule, which
turns and applies itself to the light and abilities of men, and
THAT GOD REQUIRES OP US. 283
leaves at least as many various measures of righteousness as
there are believers in the world. (3) It concludes a variation
in the centre of all religion, which is the natural and moral rela-
tion of men to God. For so there must be, if all that was once
necessary thereto, do not still continue so to be. (4) It is dishon-
ourable to the mediation of Christ. For it makes the principal
end of it to be, that God should accept of a righteousness to our
justification, inexpressibly beneath that which he required in
the law of our creation. And this in a sense makes him the
minister of sin, or that he has procured an indulgence for it;
not by the way of satisfaction and pardon whereby he takes
away the guilt of it from the church; but by taking from it its
nature and demerit, so that what v/as so originally should not
continue so to be, or at least not to deserve the punishment it
was first threatened with. (5) It reflects on the goodness of
God himself. For on this supposition that he has reduced his
law into that state and order, as to be satisfied by an observa-
tion of it so weak, so imperfect, accompanied with so many fail-
ures and sins, as it is with the obedience of the best men in this
world, (whatever thoughts to the contrary the frenzy of pride
may suggest to the minds of any) what reason can be given
consistent with his goodness why lie should give a law at first
of perfect obedience, which one sin laid all mankind under the
penalty of to their ruin?
22. All these things and sundry others of the same kind, fol-
low also on the second supposition of an imaginary estimation
of that as perfect, which is imperfect, as sinless which is attend-
ed with sins innumerable. But the judgment of God is accord-
ing to truth; neither will he reckon that to us for a perfect
righteousness in his sight, which is so imperfect as to be like
tattered rags, especially, having promised to us robes of right-
eousness and garments of salvation.
That which necessarily follows on these discourses is. That
there is no other way whereby the original, immutable law of
God, may be established, and fulfilled with respect to us, but
by the imputation of the perfect obedience and righteousness
of Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to all that
believe. " v
284
THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
CHAPTER XII.
THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST TO THE LAW, DE-
CLARED AND VINDICATED.
From the foregoing general argument, another issues in par-
ticular, with respect to the imputation of the active obedience
or righteousness of Christ to us, as an essential part of that
righteousness whereon we are justified before God. And it is
as follows. If it were necessary that the Lord Christ, as our
surety, should undergo the penalty of the law for us, or in our
stead, because we have all sinned; then it was necessary also,
that as our surety he should yield obedience to the preceptive
part of the law for us also: and if the imputation of the former
be needful for us to our justification before God, then is the im-
putation of the latter also necessary to the same end and pur-
pose. For why was it necessary, or why would God have it
so, that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, should
undergo the curse and penalty of the law, which we had in-
curred the guilt of by sin, that we may be justified in his sight?
Was it not, that the glory and honour of his righteousness, as
the author of the law, and the supreme governor of all man-
kind, thereby might not be violated in' the absolute impunity of
the infringers of it: and if it were requisite to the glory of God,
that the penalty of the law should be undergone for us, or
suffered by our surety in our stead, because we had sinned;
wherefore is it not as requisite to the glory of God, that the
preceptive part of the law be complied with for us, in as much
as obedience thereto-is required of us? And as we are no more
able of ourselves to fulfil the law, in a way of obedience, than
to undergo the penalty of it, so that we may be justified there-
by: so no reason can be given, why God is not as much con-
cerned in honour and glory, that the preceptive power and part
of the law be complied with, by perfect obedience, as that the
sanction of it be established by undergoing the penalty of it. '
Upon the same grounds, therefore, that the Lord Christ's suf-
fering the penalty of the law for us was necessary that we
might be justified in the sight of God-, and that the satisfaction
he made thereby be imputed to us, as if we ourselves hadYnade
satisfaction to God, as Eellarmine speaks and grants; on the
same it was equally necessary, that is, as to the glory and
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 285
honour of the legislator and supreme governor of all by the law,
that he should fulfil the preceptive part of it, in his perfect obe-
dience thereto, which also is to be imputed to us for our justi-
fication.
Concerning the first of these, namely, the satisfaction of
Christ, and the imputation of it to us, our principal difference
is with the Sociniaiis. And I have elsewhere written so much
in the vindication of the truth therein, that I shall not here
again resume the same argument: it is here therefore taken for
granted, although I know that there are some different appre-
hensions about the notion of Christ's suffering in our stead, and
of the imputation of those sufferings to us. But I shall here
take no notice of them, seeing I press this argument no further,
but only so far, that the obedience of Christ to the law, and
the imputation thereof to us, is no less necessary to our justifi-
cation before God, than his suffering of the penalty of the law,
and the imputation thereof to us, tp the same end. The na-
ture of this imputation, and what it is formally that is imputed,
we have considered elsewhere.
That the obedience of Christ the mediator is thus imputed
to us, shall be afterwards proved in particular by testimonies
of the Scripture. Here I intend only the vindication of the
argument as before laid down, which will take us up a little
more time than ordinary. For there is nothing in the whole
doctrine of justification, which meets with a more fierce and
various opposition: but the truth is great and will prevail.
The things that are usually objected and vehemently urged
against the imputation of the obedience of Christ for our justi-
fication, may be reduced to three heads. (1.) That it is im-
possible. (2.) That it is useless. (3.) That it is pernicious to
believe it. And if the arguments used for the enforcement of
those objections, be as cogent as the charge itself is fierce and
severe, they will unavoidably overthrow the persuasions of it
in the minds of all sober persons. But there is ofttimes a wide
difference between what is said, and what is proved, as will
appear in the present case.
1. It is pleaded impossible on this single ground; namely,
" that the obedience of Christ to the law was due from him on
his own account, and performed by him for himself, as a man
made under the law. Now what was necessary to himself,
and done for himself, cannot be said to be done for us, so as to
be imputed to us."
2. It is pretended to be useless from hence, because " all our
286 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
sins of omission and commission being pardoned in our justifi-
cation on the account of the death and satisfaction of Christ,
we are thereby made completely righteous; so that there is not
the least necessity for, or use of the imputation of the obedi-
ence of Christ to us."
3. "Peruicions also they say it is, as that which takes away
the necessity of our own personal obedience, introducing anti-
iiomianism, libertinism, and all manner of evils,"
For this last part of the charge, I refer it to its proper place.
For although it be urged by some against this part of the doc-
trine of justification in a peculiar matmer, yet it is managed
by others, against the whole of it. And although we should
grant, that the obedience of Christ to the law, is not imputed
to us for onr justification, yet shall we not be freed from dis-
turbance by this false accusation; unless we will renounce the
whole of the satisfaction and merit of Christ also. And we
intend not to purchase our peace with the whole world at so
dear a rate. Wherefore I shall in its proper place give this
part of the charge its due consideration, as it reflects on the
whole doctrine of justification, and all the causes thereof, which
we believe and profess.
The first part of this charge, concerning the impossibility of
the imputation of the obedience of Christ to us, is insisted on
by Socinus. And there has been nothing since pleaded to the
same purpose, but what has been derived from him, or where-
in, at least, he has not anticipated the inventions of other men,
and gone before them. And he makes this consideration the
principal engine wherewith he endeavours the overthrow of
the whole doctrine of the merit of Christ. For he supposes,
that if all he did in a way of obedience, was due from himself
on his own account, and was only the duty which he owed to
God for himself in his station and circumstances, as a man in
this world, it cannot be meritorious for us, nor any way im-
puted to us. And in like manner to weaken the doctrine of
his satisfaction, and the imputation thereof to us, he contends
that Christ offered as a priest for himself, in that kind of offer-
ing which he made on the cross. And his real opinion was,
that whatever was of offering or sacrifice in the death of
Christ, it was for himself; that is, it was an act of obedience
to God which pleased him, as the savour of a sweet smelling
sacrifice. His offering for us, is only the presentation of him-
self in the presence of God in heaven; now he has no more to
do for himself in a way of duty. And the truth is, if the obe-
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 287
dience of Christ had respect to himself only; that is, if he
yielded it to God, on the necessity of his condition, and did not
do it for us, I see no foundation left to assert his merit upon,
no more than I do for the imputation of it to them that be-
lieve. ^ •% 7 ■
That which we j)lead is, that the Lord Christ fulfilled the';
whole law for us; he did not only undergo the penalty of it
due to our sins, but also yielded that perfect obedience which it
required. And herein I shall not involve myself in the debate
of the distinction between the active and passive obedience of
Christ. For he exercised the highest active obedience in his
suffering, when he offered himself to God through the eternal
Spirit. And all his obedience, considering his person, was
mixed with suffering, as a part of his.exjaauition and humilia-
tion; whence it is said, that "though he was a Son, yet learn-
ed he obedience by the things that he suffered." And al-
though doing and suffering are in various categories of things,
yet Scripture testimonies are not to be regulated by philoso-
phical artifices and terms. And it must needs be said, that the
sufferings of Christ as they were purely penal, are imperfectly
called his passive righteousness. For all righteousness is either
in habit, or in action, whereof suffering is neither; nor is any
man righteous, or so esteemed from what he suffers. Neither
do sufferings give satisfaction to the commands of the law,
which require only obedience. And hence it will unavoidably
follow, that we have need of more than the mere sufferings of
Christ, whereby we may be justified before God, if so be that
any righteousness be required thereto. But the whole of what
I intend is, that Christ's fulfilling of the law in obedience to its
commands, is no less imputed to us for our justification, than
his undergoing the penalty of it is.
I cannot but judge it sounds ill in the ears of all Christians,
that the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ as our mediator
and surety to the whole law of God, was for himself alone, and
not for us; or that what he did therein, was not that he might
be the end of the law for righteousness to them that do believe,
nor a means of the fulfilling of the righteousness of the law in
us; especially considering, that the faith of the Church is, that
he was given to us, born to us; that for us men, and lor our
salvation he came down from heaven, and did, and suffered
what was required of him. But whereas some who deny the
imputation of the obedience of Christ to us, for our justification,
do insist principally on the second thing mentioned, namely,
288 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OP CHRIST
the unnsefnlness of it, I shall, under this first part of the charge,
consider only the argnings of Socinns, which is the whole of
what Sonne at present endeavour to perplex the truth with.*
I have transcribed his words, that it may appear with whose
weapons some young disputers, among ourselves, contend
against the truth. The substance of his plea is, '• that our Lord
Jesus Christ was for himself, or on his own account, obliged to
all that obedience which he performed." And this he endea-
vours to prove with this reason, " because if it were otherwise,
then he might, if he would, have neglected the whole law of
God, and have broken it at his pleasure." For he forgot to
consider, that if he were not obliged to it upon his own account,
but was so on ours, whose cause he had undertaken, the obli-
gation on him to most perfect obedience, was equal to what it
would have been, had he been originally obliged on his own
account. However hence he infers, that what he did, could
not be for us, " because it was so for himself, no more than
what any other man is bound to do in a way of duty for him-
self, can be esteemed to have been done also for another," For
he will allow of none of those considerations of the person of
Christ which makes what he did and suffered, of another na-
ture and efficacy, than what can be done or suffered by any
other man. All that he adds, in the process of his discourse,
is, " that whatever Christ did, that was not required by the law
in general, was upon the especial command of God, and so
done for himself; whence it cannot be imputed to us." And
hereby he excludes the Church from any benefit by the media-
tion of Christ, but only what consists in his doctrine, example,
and the exercise of his power in heaven for our good, which
was the thing that he aimed at. But we siiall consider those
also which make use of his arguments, though not as yet open-
ly to all his ends.
To clear the truth herein, the things ensuing must be ob-
served.
* Jam vero manifestum est, Christum quia homo natus fuerat, et quidem, ut
inquit Paulus, factus sub lege, legi divince inquam,qu!B seterna et imnmtabilis est,
non minus quam creteri homines obnoxium fuisse. AHoqui potuisset C'liristus
EBternam Dei legem negligere, sive etiam univcrsam si voluisset infringere, quod
impium est ve! cogitare. Imnio ut supra alicubi explicatum fuit, nisi ipse Chris-
tus legi divinae servanda; obno.xius fuisset, ut ex Pauli verbis colligitur, non potu-
isset iis, qui ei legi servandre obnoxii sunt, opem ferre et eos ad imraortaiitatis fir-
mam spem traducere. Non dificrebat igitur hac quidem ex parte Christus, quando
homo natus erat, a caeteris hominibus. Quocirea nee etiam pro aiiis, magis quam
quilibet alius homo, legem divinam conscrvando, satisfacere potuit, quijjpe qui ipse
earn servare omnino debuit. — De Servat. par. iii. cap. 5.
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. ^289
1, The obedience we treat of, was the obedience of Christ
the Mediator. But the obedience of Christ as the Mediator of
the covenant, was the obedience of his person: for "God re-
deemed his church with his own blood," Acts xx. 28. It was
performed in the human nature, but the person of Christ was
he that performed it. As in the person of a man, some of his
acts, as to the immediate principle of operation, are acts of the
body, and some are acts of the soul, yet in their performance
and accomplishment, are they the acts of the person; so the
acts of Christ in his mediation, as to their ivipyrifxara or imme-
diate operation, were the actmgs of his distinct natures; some
of the divine, and some of the human immediately. But as to
their axotsxsafxata, and the perfecting efficacy of them, they were
the acts of his whole person: his acts who was that person,
and whose power of operation was a property of his person.
Wherefore the obedience of Christ which we plead to have
been for us, was the obedience of the Son of God; but ihe Son
of God was never absolutely made vno vojxov " under the law,"
nor could be formally obliged thereby. He was indeed, as the
Apostle witnesses, made so in his human nature, wherein he
performed this obedience, " made of a woman, made under the
law," Gal. iv. 4. He was so far "made under the law," as he
was made of a woman. For in his person he abode " Lord of
the Sabbath," Mark ii. 28, and therefore of the whole law.
But the obedience itself, was the obedience of that person, who
never was, nor ever could absolutely be, made under the law,
in his whole person. For the divine nature cannot be subjected
to an outward work of its own, such as the law is; nor can it
have an authoritative commanding power over it, as it must
have, if it were made "under the law." Thus the Apostle ar-
gues, that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, because he was then
in his loins, when Abraham himself paid tithes to Melchisedec,
Heb. vii. And thence he proves, that he was inferior to the Lord
Christ, of whom Melchisedec was a type. But may it not
thereon be replied, that then no less the Lord Christ was in the
loins of Abraham than Levi? "for verily," as the same Apostle
speaks, "he took on him the seed of Abraham." It is true,
therefore, that he was so in respect of his human nature; but
as he was typified and represented by Melchisedec in his whole
person, "wiihout father, without mother, without genealogy,
without beginning of days or end of life:" so he was not abso-
lutely in Abraham's loins, and was exempted from being tithed
in him. Wherefore the obedience whereof we treat, being not
25
;;|iV
290 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
the obedience of the human nature abstractedly, however per-
formed in and by the human nature, but the obedience of the
person of the Son of God, however the human nature was sub-
ject to the law, (in what sense, and to what ends shall be de-
clared afterwards) it was not for himself, nor could be for him-
self, because his whole person was not obliged thereto. It is
therefore a vain thing to compare the obedience of Christ, with
that of any other man, whose whole person is under the law.
For although that may not be for himself and others, (which
yet we shall show that in some cases it may,) yet this may,
yea must be for others, and not for himself. This then we
must strictly hold to. If the obedience that Christ yielded to
the law were for himself, whereas it was the act of his person,
his whole person, and the divine nature therein, were made
under the law, which cannot be. For although it is acknow-
ledged, that in the ordination of God, his exinanition was to
precede his glorious majestic exaltation, as the Scripture wit-
nesses, Phil. ii. 9. Luke xxiv. 26. Rom. xiv. 9; yet absolutely
his glory was an immediate consequence of the hypostatical
union, Heb. i. 6. Matth. ii. 11.
Socinus, I confess, evades the force of this argument, by
denying the divine person of Christ. But in this disputation
I take that for granted, as having proved it elsewhere, beyond
what any of his followers are able to contradict. And if we
may not build on truths by him denied, we shall scarce have
any one principle of evangelical truih left us to prove any
thing from. However, I aim at those only at present, who
concur with him in the matter under debate, but renounce
his opinion concerning the person of Christ.
2. As our Lord Jesus Christ owed not in his own person
this obedience for himself, by virtue of any authority or power
that the law had over him, so he designed and intended it not
for himself, but for us. This added to the former considera-
tion, gives full evidence to the truth pleaded for; for if he was
not obliged to it for himself, his person that yielded it, not
being under the law; and if he intended it not for himself,
then it must be for us, or be useless: it was in our human nature,
that he performed all this obedience. Now the susception of
our nature, was a voluntary act of his own, with reference to
some end and purpose; and that which was the end of the
assumption of our nature, was in like manner the end of all
that he did therein. Now it was for us, and not for himself,
that he assumed our nature; nor was any thing added to him
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 291
thereby: wherefore in the issue of his work, he proposes this
only to himself, that he may '' be glorified with that glory
which he had with the Father, before the world was," by the
removal of that veil which was put upon it in his exinanition.
But that it was for us tliat he assumed our nature, is the foun-
dation of the Christian religion; as it is asserted by the Apostle,
Heb. ii. 14. Phil. ii. 5—8.
Some of the ancient schoolmen disputed, that the Son of
God should have been incarnate, although man had not sinned
and fallen. The same opinion was fiercely pursued by Osian-
der as I have elsewhere declared; but none of them once
imagined, that he should have been so made man, as to be
made under the law, and be obliged thereby to that obedience
which now he has performed: but they judged that imme-
diately he was to have been a glorious head to the whole crea-
tion. For it is a common notion and presumption of all Chris-
tians, but only such as will sacrifice such notions to their own
private conceptions, that the obedience which Christ yielded
to the law on earth, in the state and condition wherein he
yielded it, was not for himself, but for the church, which was
obliged to perfect obedience, but was not able to accomplish
it. That this was his sole end and design in it, is a funda-
mental article, if I mistake not, of the creed of most Christians
in the world; and to deny it consequently overthrows all the
grace and love both of the Father and Son, in his mediation.
It is said, " that this obedience was necessary as a qualifi-
cation of his person, that he might be meet to be a mediator
for us, and therefore was for himself; it belongs to the neces-
sary constitution of his person, with respect to his mediatory
work:" but this I positively deny. The Lord Christ was every
way meet for the whole work of mediation, by the ineffable
union of the human nature with the divine, which exalted it
in dignity, honour and worth, above any thing, or all things
that ensued thereon. For hereby he became in his whole per-
son the object of all divine worship and honour; "for when
he brings the first begotten into the world, he saiih, and let all
the angels of God worship him." Again that which is an
eft'ect of the person of the mediator as constituted such, is not a
qualification necessary to its constitution; that is, what he did
as mediator, did not concur to the making of him meet so to be.
But of this nature was all the obedience which he yielded to
the law, for as such, " it became him to fulfil all righteous-
ness."
i
292 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
Whereas therefore he was neither made man, nor of the pos-
terity of Abraham for himself, but for the church, namely, to be-
come thereby the surety of the covenant, and representative of
the whole, his obedience as a man to the law in general, and as
a son of Abraham to the law of Moses, was for us, and not for
himself; so designed, so performed, and without a respect to
the church, was of no use to himself. He was born to us, and
given to us, lived for us, and died for us, obeyed for us, and
suffered for us; that by the obedience of one, many might be
made righteous. This was the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ;
and this is the faith of the Catholic church. And what he did
for us, is imputed to us. This is included in the very notion of
his doing it for us, which cannot be spoken in any sense, un-
less that which he so did, be imputed to us. And I think men
ought to be wary, that they do not by distinctions and studied
evasions, for the defence of their own private opinions, shake
the foundations of Christianity. And I am sure it will be easier
for them, as it is in the proverb, "To wrest the club out of the
hand of Hercules," than to dispossess the minds of true believ-
ers of this persuasion; that what the Lord Christ did in obe-
dience to God according to the law, he designed in his love and
grace to do it for them. He needed no obedience for himself,
he came not into a capacity of yielding obedience for himself,
but for us; and therefore for us it was, that he fulfilled the law
in obedience to God according to the terms of it. The obliga-
tion that was on him to obedience, was originally no less for
us, no less needful to us, no more for himself, no more necessa-
ry to him, than the obligation that was on him as the surety of
the covenant, to suffer the penalty of the law, was either the
one, or the other.
3. Setting aside the consideration of the grace and love of
Christ, and the compact between the Father and the Son, as to
his undertaking for us, which undeniably proves all that he did
in the pursuit of them to be done for us, and not for himself;
the human nature of Christ, by virtue of its union with the
person of the Son of God, had a right to, and miglit have imme-
diately been admitted into, the highest glory whereof it was
capable, without any antecedent obedience to the law. And this
is apparent from hence, in that from tlie first instant of that
union, the whole person of Christ with our nature existing
tlierein, was the object of all divine worship from angels and
men, wherein consists the highest exaltation of that nature.
It is true, there was a peculiar glory that he was actually to
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 293
be made partaker of, with respect to his antecedent obedience
and suffering, Phil. ii. 8, 9. The actual possession of this glory-
was, in the ordination of God, to be consequent to his obeying
and suffering, not for himself, but for us. But as to the right
and capacity of the human nature in itself, all the glory whereof
it was capable, was due to it from the instant of its union. For
it was therein exalted above the condition that any creature is
capable of by mere creation. And it is but a Socinian fiction, that
the first foundation of the divine glory of Christ was laid in his
obedience, which was only the way of his actual possession of
that part of his glory, which consists in his mediatory power
and authority over all. The real foundation of the whole, was
laid in the union of his person ; whence he prays that the Father
would glorify him, (as to manifestation) with that glory which
he had with him before the world was.
I will grant, that the Lord Christ was viator whilst he was
in this world, and not dihso\\\{e\Y possessor; yet I say withal he
was so, not that any such condition was necessary to him for
himself; but he took it upon him by especial dispensation for
us. And therefore the obedience he performed in that condi-
tion, was for us, and not for himself.
4. It is granted therefore, that the human nature of Christ
was made vko vo^ov, as the Apostle affirms, that which was
made of a woman, was made under the law. Hereby obe-
dience became necessary to him, as he was and whilst he was
viator. But this being by especial dispensation, intimated in the
expression of it, he made was under tlie law, namely, as he was
made of a woman, by especial dispensation and condescension
expressed, Phil. ii. 6 — 8; the obedience he yielded thereon,
was for us, and not for himself And this is evident from hence,
for he was so made under the law, as that not only he owed
obedience to the precepts of it, but he was made obnoxious to
its curse. But I suppose it will not be said, that he was so for
himself, and therefore not for us. We owed obedience to the
law, and were obnoxious to the curse of it, or vnobixot, ti^ ©tw.
Obedience was required of us, and was as necessary to us, if
we would enter into life, as the answering of the curse for us
was, if we would escape death eternal. Christ as our surety,
is made under the law for us, whereby he becomes liable and
obliged to the obedience which the 'law required, and to the
penalty that it threatened. Who shall now dare to say, that
he underwent the penalty of the law for us indeed, but he
yielded obedience to it for himself only ? The whole harmony
25*
294 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIE^XE OF CHRIST
of the work of his mediation, would be disordered by such a
supposition.
Judah, the son of Jacob, undertook to be a bondman instead
of Benjamin his brother, that he might go free, Gen. xhv. 33.
There is no doubt but Joseph might have accepted of the stipu-
lation. Had he done so, the service and bondage he undertook,
had been necessary to Judah, and righteous for him to bear;
howbeit he had undergone it, and performed his duty in it, not
for himself, but for his brother Benjamin ; and to Benjamin it
would have been imputed in his liberty. So when the Apostle
Paul wrote those words to Philemon concerning Onesimus,
verse IS, " If he hath wronged ihee," dealt unrighteously or
injuriously wUh thee, " or oweth thee aught," Vv herein thou
hast suflered loss by him, "put it on my account," or impute
it all to me; "I will repay it," or answer for it all. He sup-
poses that Philemon might have a double action against Onesi-
mus; the one injuriariim, and the other damni or debiti, of
wrong and injury, and of loss or debt; which are distinct ac-
tions in the law: if he has wronged thee, or oweth thee aught.
Hereon he proposes himself, and obliges himself by his express
obligation. " I Paul have written it with my own hand," that
he would answer for both, and pay back a valuable considera-
tion if required. Hereby was he obliged in his own person to
make satisfaction to Philemon; but yet he was to do it for
Onesimus, and not for himself. Whatever obedience therefore
was due from the Lord Christ, as to his human nature whilst
in the " form of a servant," either as a man, or as an Israelite,
seeing he was so not necessarily by the necessity of nature for
himself, but by voluntary condescension and stipulation for us,
for us it was, and not for himself.
5. The Lord Christ in his obedience was not a private, but
a public person. He obeyed as he was the surety of the cove-
nant, as the mediator between God and man. This I suppose
will not be denied. He can by no imagination be considered
out of that capacity. But what a public person does as a pub-
lic person, that is as a representative of others, and an under-
taker for them, whatever may be his own concernment therein,
he does it not for himself, but for others. And if others were
not concerned therein, if it were not for them, what he does
would be of no use or signification. Yea, it implies a contra-
diction that any one should do any thing as a public person,
and do it for himself only. He who is a public person, may
do that wherein he alone is concerned, but he cannot do so as
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 295
he is a public person. Wherefore as Socinns, and those that
follow him would have Christ to have offered for himself,
which is to make him a mediator for himself, his offering being
a mediatory act, which is both foolish and impious; so to
affirm his mediatory obedience, his obedience as a public per-
son, to have been for himself, and not for others, has but little
less of impiety in it.
6, It is granted, that the Lord Christ having a human na-
ture, which was a creature, it was impossible but that it should
be subject to the law of creation. For there is a relation that
necessarily arises from, and depends upon the beings of a crea-
tor and a creature. Every rational creature is eternally obliged
from the nature of God, and its relation thereto, to love liim,
obey him, depend upon him, submit to him, and to make him
its end, blessedness, and reward. But the law of creation thus
considered, does not respect the world, and this life only, but
the future state of heaven, and eternity also. And this law,
the human nature of Christ is subject to, in heaven and glory,
and cannot but be so, whilst it is a creature, and not God, that
is, whilst it has its own being. Nor do any men fancy such
a transfusion of divine properties into the human nature of
Christ, as that it should be self-subsisting, and in itself, abso-
lutely immense; for this would openly destroy it. Yet none
will say, that he is now " under the law," in the sense intended
by the Apostle. But the law in the sense described, the hu-
man nature of Christ was subject to, on its own account, whilst
he was in this world. And this is sufficient to answer the ob-
jection of Socinus, mentioned at the entrance of this discourse,
namely, " that if the Lord Christ were not obliged to obedi-
ence for himself, then might he, if he would, neglect the whole
law, or infringe it." For besides that it is a foolish imagina-
tion concerning that holy thing which was hypostatically
united to the Son of God, and thereby rendered incapable of
any deviation from the divine will; the eternal indispensable
law of love, adherence, and dependence on God, under which
the human nature of Christ was, and is, as a creature, gives
sufficient security against such suppositions.
But there is another consideration of the law of God, name-
ly, as it is imposed on creatures by especial dispensation, for
some time, and for some certain end; with some considera-
tions, rules, and orders, that belong not essentially to the law,
as before described. This is the nature of the written law of
God, which the Lord Christ was made under, not necessarily
296 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
as a creature, but by especial dispensation. For the law, un-
der this consideration, is presented to us as such, not absolutely
and eternally, but whilst we are in this world, and that with
this especial end, that by obedience thereto, we may obtain
the reward of eternal life. And it is evident, that the obliga-
tion of the law, under this consideration, ceases when we come
to the enjoyment of that reward. It obliges us no more for-
mally by its command, " Do this and live," when the life pro-
mised is enjoyed. In this sense the Lord Christ was not made
subject to the law for himself, nor did yield obedience to it for
himself. For he was not obliged to it by virtue of his created
condition. Upon the first instant of the union of his natures,
being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, he
might, notwithstanding the law that he was made subject to,
have been stated in glory. For he that was the object of all
divine worship, needed not any new obedience, to procure for
him a state of blessedness. And had he naturally, merely by
virtue of his being a creature, been subject to tlie law in this
sense, he must have been so eternally, which he is not. For
those things which depend solely on the natures of God and
the creature, are eternal and immutable. Wherefore, as the
law in this sense was given to us, not absoliUely, but with re-
spect to a future state and reward; so the Lord Christ volun-
tarily subjected himself to it for us, and his obedience thereto
was for us, and not for himself. These things added to what
1 have formerly written on this subject, whereto nothing has
been opposed, but a few impertinent cavils, are sufficient to
discharge the first part of that charge laid down before, con-
cerning the impossibility of the imputation of the obedience of
Christ to us; which indeed is equal to the impossibility of the
imputation of the disobedience of Adam to us; whereby the
Apostle tells us, that we were all made sinners.
The second part of the objection or charge against the impu-
tation of the obedience of Christ to us, is, " That it is useless to
the persons that are to be justified. For whereas they have
in their justification the pardon of all their sins, they are thereby
righteous, and have a right or title to life and blessedness: for
he who is so pardoned, as not to be esteemed guilty of any sin
of omission or commission, wants nothing that is requisite
thereto. For he is supposed to liave done all that he ought,
and to have omitted nothing required of him in a way of duty.
Hereby he becomes not unrighteous, and to be not unrighteous,
is the same as to be righteous. As he that is not dead, is alive.
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 297
Neither is there, nor can there be any middle state between
death and hfe. Wherefore those who have all their sins for-
given, have the blessedness of justification; and there is neither
need, nor use of any further imputation of righteousness to
them." And sundry other things of the same nature, are
urged to same purpose, which will be all of them either ob-
viated in the ensuing discourse, or answered elsewhere.
Answer. This cause is of more importance, and more evi-
dently stated in the Scriptures, than to be turned into such
niceties, which have more of philosophical subtilty, than theo-
logical solidity, in them. This exception therefore might be
dismissed without further answer, than what is given us in
the known rule. That a truth well established and confirmed,
is not to be questioned, much less relinquished on every en-
tangling sophism, though it should appear insoluble. But as
we shall see, there is no such difficulty in these arguings, but
what may easily be discussed. And because the matter of the
plea contained in them, is made use of by sundry learned per-
sons who yet agree with us in the substance of the doctrine of
justification, namely, that it is by faith alone, without works,
through the innputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ,
I shall, as briefly as I can, discover the mistakes that it pro-
ceeds upon.
1. It includes a supposition, that he who is pardoned his sins
of omission and commission, is esteemed to have done all that
is required of him, and to have committed nothing that is for-
bidden. For without this supposition, the bare pardon of sin
will neither make, constitute, nor denominate any man right-
eous. But this is far otherwise, nor is any such thing included
in the nature of pardon. For in the pardon of sin, neither God
nor man judges, that he who has sinned, has not sinned;
which must be done, if he who is pardoned be esteemed to
have done all that he ought, and to have done nothing that he
ought not to do. If a man be brought on his trial for any evil
fact, and being legally convicted thereof, be discharged by
sovereign pardon; it is true, that in the eye of the law, he is
looked upon as an innocent man, as to the punishment that
was due to him; but no man thinks that he is made righteous
thereby, or is esteemed not to have done that which really he
has done, and whereof he was convicted. Joab and Abiathar
the priest, were at the same time guilty of the same crime.
Solomon gives order that Joab be put to death for his crime;
but to Abiathar he gives a pardon. Did he thereby m.ake.
298 THE I3IPUTATI0N OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
declare or constitute him righteous? He himself expresses
the contrary, affirming him to be unrighteous and guilty, only
he remitted the punishment of his fault, 1 Kings ii. 26. Where-
fore the pardon of sin discharges the guilty person from being
liable or obnoxious to anger, wrath, or punishment, due to his
sin; but it does not suppose, nor infer in the least, that he is
thereby or ought thereon to be esteemed or adjudged to have
done no evil, and to have fulfilled all righteousness. Some say,
pardon gives a righteousness of innocency, but not of obe-
dience. But it cannot give a righteousness of innocency, ab-
solutely, such as Adam had. For he had actually done no evil.
It only removes guilt, which is the respect of sin to punish-
ment, ensuing on the sanction of the law. And this supposi-
tion, which is an evident mistake, animates this whole ob-
jection.
The like may be said of what is in like manner supposed,
namely, that not to be unrighteous, which a man is on the
pardon of sin, is the same with being righteous. For if not
to be unrighteous be taken privatively, it is the same with
being just or righteous; for it supposes that he who is so, has
done all the duty that is required of him, that he may be
righteous. But not to be unrighteous, negatively, as the ex-
pression is here used, does not do so. For at best it supposes
no more, but that a man as yet has done nothing actually
against the rule of righteousness. Now this may be when
yet he has performed none of the duties that are required of
him to constitute him righteous, because the times and occa-
sions of them are not yet. And so it was with Adam in the
state of innocency; which is the height of what can be attained
by the complete pardon of sin.
2. It proceeds on this supposition, that the law, in case of
sin, does not oblige to punishment and obedience both; so that
it is not satisfied, fulfilled, or complied with, unless it be an-
swered with respect to both. For if it does so, then the pardon
of sin, which only frees us from the penalty of the law, yet
leaves it necessary, that obedience be performed to it, even
all that it requires. But this, in my judgment, is an evident
mistake, and that such as does not establish the law, but make
it void. And this I shall demonstrate.
1. The law has two parts or powers. (1) Its preceptive part,
commanding and requiring obedience, with a promise of life
annexed; " Do this and live." (2) The sanction on supposi-
tion of disobedience, binding the sinner to punishment, or a
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 299
mete recompense of reward. " In the day thou sinnest, thou
shalt die." And every law properly so called, proceeds on
these suppositions of obedience or disobedience, whence its
commanding and punishing power are inseparable from its
nature.
2. This law, whereof we speak, was first given to man in
innocency; and therefore the first power of it, was only in act.
It obliged only to obedience. For an innocent person could
not be obnoxious to its sanction, which contained only an obli-
gation to punishment, on supposition of disobedience. It could
not therefore oblige our first parents to obedience and punish-
ment both, seeing its obligation to punishment could not be in
actual force, but on supposition of actual disobedience. A moral
cause of, and motive to obedience it was, and had an influence
upon the preservation of man from sin. To that end it was
said to him, "In the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die."
The neglect hereof, and of that ruling influence which it ought
to have had on the minds of our first parents, opened the door
to the entrance of sin. But it implies a contradiction, that an
innocent person should be under an actual obligation to pun-
ishment from the sanction of the law. It bound only to obe-
dience, as all laws with penalties do, before their transgression.
But
3. On the committing of sin, (and it is so with every one that
is guilty of sin) man came under an actual obligation to punish-
ment. This is no more questionable than whether at first he
was under an obligation to obedience. But then the question
is, whether the first intention and obligation of the law to obe-
dience ceases to affect tiie sinner, or continues so, as at the
same time to oblige him to obedience and punishment, both its
powers being in act towards him. And hereto I say
1. Had the punishment threatened, been immediately inflict-
ed to the utmost of what was contained in it, this could have
been no question. For man had died immediately both tem-
porally and eternally, and been cast out of that state wherein
alone he could stand in any relation to the preceptive power of
the law. He that is finally executed, has fulfilled the law so,
that he owes no more obedience to it. But
2. God in his wisdom and patience, has otherwise disposed
of things. Man is continued a viator still in the way to his
end, and not fully stated in his eternal and unchangeable con-
dition, wherein neither promise nor threatening, reward nor
punishment could be proposed to him. In this condition he
oUU THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
falls under a twofold consideration. (1) Of a guilty person, and
SO is obliged to the full punishment, that the law threatens. This
is not denied. (2) Of a man, a rational creature of God, not
yet brought to his eternal end.
3. In this state, the law is the only instrument and means of
the continuance of the relation between God and him. Where-
fore under this consideration it cannot but still obhge him to
obedience, unless we shall say, that by his sin he has exempted
himself from the government of God. Wherefore it is by the
law, that the rule and government of God over men, is contin-
ued whilst they are in statu viatorum: for every disobedience,
every transgression of its rule and order as to its commanding
power casts us afresh, and further, under its power of obliging
to punishment.
Neither can these things be otherwise; nor can any man
living, not the worst of men, choose but judge himself, whilst he
is in this world, obliged to give obedience to the law of God,
according to the notices that he has of it by the light of nature
or otherwise. A wicked servant that is punished for his fault,
if it be with such a punishment as yet continues his being, and
his state of servitude, is not by his punishment freed from an
obligation to duty, according to the rule of it. Yea, his obliga-
tion to duty, with respect to that crime for which he was pun-
ished, is not dissolved, until his punishment be capital, and so
put an end to his state. Wherefore seeing that by the pardon
of sin, we are freed only from the obligation to punishment,
there is moreover required to our justification, an obedience to
what the law requires.
And this greatly strengthens the argument, in whose vindi-
cation we are engaged; for we, being sinners, were obnoxious
both to the command and curse of the law. Both must be an-
swered, or we cannot be justified. And as the Lord Christ
could not, by his most perfect obedience, satisfy the curse of
the law, " Dying thou shalt die;" so by the utmost of his suffer-
ing, he could not fulfil the command of the law, "Do this and
live." Passion as passion is not obedience, though there may
be obedience in suffering, as there was in tliat of Christ to the
height. Wherefore as we plead that the death of Christ is im-
puted to us for our justification, so we deny that it is imputed
to us for our righteousness. For by the imputation of the suf-
ferings of Christ, our sins are remitted or pardoned, and we are
delivered from the curse of the law, which he underwent. But
we are not thence esteemed just or righteous, which we cannot
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 301
be without respect to the fulfilUngof the commandsof the law,
or the obedience by it required. The whole matter is excel-
lently expressed by Grotius in the words before alleged. *
3. The objection mentioned proceeds also on this supposi-
tion, that pardon of sin gives title to eternal blessedness in the
enjoyment of God: for justification does so, and according to
the authors of this opinion, no other righteousness is required
thereto but pardon of sin. That justification gives right and
title to adoption, acceptance with God, and the heavenly inheri-
tance, I suppose will not be denied, and it has been proved
already. Pardon of sin depends solely on the death or suffer-
ing of Christ: "in whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace," Ephes. i. 7. But suffering for punishment gives right
and title to nothing, only satisfies for something; nor does it
deserve any reward: it is no where said. Suffer this and live,
but Do this and live.
These things, I confess, are inseparably connected in the
ordinance, appointment, and covenant of God. Whosoever
has his sins pardoned, is accepted with God, has right to eter-
nal blessedness. These things are inseparable, but they are
not one and the same. And by reason of their inseparable re-
lation, are they so put together by the Apostle, Rom. iv. 6 — S.
" Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, to
whom God imputeth righteousness without works: Blessed
are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not im-
pute sin." It is the imputation of righteousness, that gives
right to blessedness; but pardon of, sin is inseparable from it,
and an effect of it, both being opposed to justification by works,
or an internal righteousness of our own. But it is one thing
to be freed from being liable to eternal death; and another to
have right and title to a blessed and eternal life. It is'one
thing to be " redeemed from under the law," that is the curse
of it; another to receive the " adoption of sons." One thing
to be freed from the curse, another to have the blessing of
Abraham come upon us; as the Apostle distinguishes these
things. Gal. iii. 13, 14; iv. 4, 5. And so does our Lord Jesus
Christ, Acts xxvi. IS. " That they may receive forgiveness of
* Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus impunitatem et priEmium, illud
satisfactioni, hoc mcrito Christi distincte tribuit vetus ecclesla. Satisfactio consistit
in meritorum translatione, mcritum in perfectissimae obediei:^£e pro nobis prtestitte
imputatione.
26
302
THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CIIHIST
sins, and inheritance (a lot and right to the inheritance) amongst
them that are sanctified by faith that is in me." A^fcrtj ai-iapfiuv
which we have by faith in Christ is only a " dismission of sin"
from being pleadable to our condemnation; on which account
" there is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus."
But a riglit and title to glory, or the heavenly inheritance, it
gives not. Can it be supposed, that all the great and glorious
eftects of present grace and future blessedness, should follow
necessarily on, and be the effect of mere pardon of sin? Can
we not be pardoned, but we must thereby of necassity be made
sons, heirs of God, and co-heirs with Christ?
Pardon of sin is in God, with respect to the sinner, a free
gratuitous act; "forgiveness of sin through the riches of his
grace." But with respect to the satisfaction of Christ, it is an
act in judgment. For on the consideration thereof as imputed
to him, God absolves and acquits the sinner upon his trial.
But pardon on a juridical trial, on what consideration soever
it be granted, gives no right nor title to any favour, benefit, or
privilege, but only mere deliverance. It is one thing to be ac-
quitted before the throne of a king, of crimes laid to the charge
of any man, which may be done by clemency, or on otlier con-
siderations; another to be made his son by adoption, and heir
to his kingdom.
And these things are represented to us in the Scripture, as
distinct and depending on distinct causes. So are they in the
vision concerning Joshua the high priest, Zech. iii. 4, 5. " And
he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, say-
ing, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him
he said, behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee;
and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said.
Let them set a fair mitre upon his head; so they set a tair
mitre on his head, and clothed him witli garments." It has
been generally granted, that we have here a representation of
the justification of a sinner before God. And the taking away
of filthy garments, is expounded by the passing away of ini-
quity. When a man's filthy garments are taken away, he is
no more defiled with them; but he is not thereby clothed.
This is an additional grace and favour thereto, namely to be
clothed with change of garments. And what this raiment is,
is declared Isa. Ixi. 10: " He hath clothed me with the gar-
ments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of right-
eousness;" which the Apostle alludes to, Phil. iii. 9. Where-
fore these thing^re distinct; namely, the taking away of the
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 303
filthy garments, and the clothing of us with change of raiment;
or the pardon of sin, and the robe of righteousness; by the one
are we freed from condemnation, by the other we have right
to salvation. And the same is in like manner represented
Ezek. xvi. 6 — 12.
This place I had formerly urged to this purpose about com-
munion with God, whicli Mr. Hotchkiss in his usual man-
ner attempts to answer. And to omit his reviling expres-
sions, with the crude unproved assertion of his own conceits,
his answer is, that by the change of raiment mentioned in the
prophet, our own personal righteousness is intended. For he
acknowledges that our justification before God is here repre-
sented. And so also he expounds the place produced in the
confirmation of the exposition given, Isa. Ixi. 10, where this
change of raiment is called " the garments of salvation and the
robe of righteousness;" and thereon affirms, that our righteous-
ness itself, before God, is our personal righteousness; that is,
in our justification before him, which is the only thing in ques-
tion. To all which presumptions, I shall oppose only the tes-
timony of the same prophet, which he may consider at his
leisure, and which, at one time or other, he will subscribe to.
Isa. Ixiv. 6. " We are all as an unclean thing, and all our right-
eousnesses are as fihhy rags." He who can make garments
of salvation, and robes of righteousness of these filthy rags,
has a skill in composing spiritual vestments that I am not ac-
quainted with. What remains in the chapter wherein this an-
swer is given to that testimony of the Scripture, I shall take
no notice of, it being after his accustomed manner, only a
perverse wresting of my words to such a sense, as may seem
to countenance him in casting a reproach upon myself and
others.
There is therefore no force in the comparing of these things
to life and death natiu'al, which are immediately opposed; so
that he who is not dead is alive, and he who is alive, is not
dead, there being no distinct state between that of life and death.
For these things being of different natures, the comparison be-
tween them is no way argumentative. Though it maybe so
in things natural, it is otherwise in things moral and political,
where a proper representation of justification may be taken, as
it is forensic. If it were so, that tliere is no difference between
being acquitted of a crime at the bar of a judge, and a right to
a kingdom, nor any different state between these things, it
would prove, that there is no intermediate estate between being
304
THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
pardoned, and having a right to the heavenly inheritance. But
this is a vain imagination.
It is true, that right to eternal life, succeeds to freedom from
the guilt of eternal death. "That they may receive forgiveness
ofsins, andan inheritance among them that are sanctified."
But it does not do so, out of a necessity in the nature of the
things themselves, but only in the free constitution of God.
Believers have the pardon of sin, and an immediate right and
title to the favour of God, the adoption of sons, and eternal
life. But there is another state in the nature of the things
themselves, and this might have been so actually, had it so
seemed good to God; for who sees not, that there is a status
or conditio personse, wherein he is neither under the guilt of
condemnation, nor has an immediate right and title to glory, in
the way of inheritance. God might have pardoned men all
their 'sins past, and placed them in a state and condition of
seeking righteousness for the future, by the works of the law,
that so they might have lived: for this would answer the origi-
nal state of Adam, But God has not done so ; true : but whereas
he might have done so, it is evident that the disposal of men
into this state and condition of right to life and salvation, does
not depend on, nor proceed from the pardon of sin, but has an-
other cause, which is the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ to us, as he fulfilled the law for us.
And in truth, this is the opinion of the most of our adversa-
ries in this cause: for they contend, that over and above the
remission of sin, which some of them say is absolute, without
any respect to the merit or satisfaction of Christ, while others
refer it to them; there is moreover, a righteousness of works
required to our justification ; only they say, this is our own
incomplete, imperfect righteousness, imputed to us, as if it were
perfect, that is for what it is not; and not the righteousness of
Christ, imputed to us for what it is.
From what has been discoursed, it is evident that, to our
justification before God, is required, not only that we be freed
from the damnatory sentence of the law, which we are by the
pardon of sin, but moreover, that the righteousness of the law
be fulfilled in us, or, that we have a righteousness answering
the obedience that the law requires, whereon our acceptance
with God, through the riches of his grace, and our title to the
heavenly inheritance, depend. This we have not in and of our-
selves, nor can attain to, as has been proved. Wherefore the
perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ is imputed to us,
or in the sight of God we can never be justified.
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 305
Nor are the cavilling objections of the Socinians, and those
that follow them, of any force against the truth herein. They
tell us that the righteousness of Christ can be imputed but to
one, if to any. " For who can suppose that the same righteous-
ness of one should become the righteousness of many, even of
all that believe? Besides he performed not all the duties that
are required of us in all our relations, he being never placed
in them." These things, I say, are both foolish and impious,
destructive to the whole gospel. For all things here depend on
the ordination of God. It is his ordinance that "as through
the offence of one many are dead ; so his grace, and the gift of
grace, through one man Christ Jesus hath abounded unto many;
and as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to
condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, tlie free gift came
upon all unto the righteousness of life, and by the obedience of
one many are made rigliteous;" as the Apostle argues, Rom. v.
*' For God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and
for sin, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
us," Rom. viii. 3, 4. For "he was ,the,end of the law (the
whole end of it) for righteousness 'HiTto them that believe,"
Rom. X. 4. This is the appointment of the wisdom, righteous-
ness and grace of God, that the whole righteousness and obe-
dience of Christ should be accepted as our complete righteous-*
ness before him, imputed to us by his grace, and applied to us
or made ours through believing, and consequently to all that
believe. And if the actual sin of Adam be imputed to us all,
who derive oiu' nature from him to condemnation, though
he sinned not in our circumstances and relations, is it strange
that the actual obedience of Christ should be imputed to them
who derive a spiritual nature from him, to the justification of
life? Besides both the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as
relating to his person, were in some sense infinite, that is, of an
infinite value, and so cannot be considered in parts, as though
one part of it were imputed to one, and another to another, but
the whole is imputed to every one that believes; and if the
.Israelites could say, that David was worth ten thousand of
them, 2 Sam. xxi. 3, we may well allow the Lord Christ, and
so what he did and suffered, to be more than all of us, and all
that we can do and suffer.
There are also sundry other mistakes. that concur lo that
part of the charge against the imputation oT' tlie righteousness
of Christ to us, which we have now considered; I say of
his righteousness; for the Apostle in this case uses those two
26*
306 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
words bLxaiioixa, and vTiaxoi^, righteousness and obedience, as of
the same signification, Rom. v. IS, 19. Such are those, that
remission of sin and justification are the same, or that justifica-
tion consists only in the remission of sin; that faith itself as our
act and duty, being the condition of the covenant, is imputed
to us for righteousness; or that we have a personal inherent
righteousness of our own, that one way or other is our right-
eousness before God for justification, either as a condition or a
disposition to it; or as having a congruity in deserving the
grace of justification, or a downright merit of condignity there-
of. For all these are but various expressions of the same thing,
according to the variety of the conceptions of the minds of men
about it. But they have been all considered and removed in
our preceding discourses.
To close this argument and our vindication of if, and there-
with to obviate an objection, I acknowledge that our blessed-
ness and hfe eternal is in the Scripture oft-times ascribed to
the death of Christ: but it is so (1) as the principal cause of
the whole, and as that vyithout which no imputation of obe-
dience could have justified us; for the penalty of the law was
indispensably to be undergone. (2) It is so, not exclusively
of all obedience, whereof mention is made in other places, but
•as that whereto it is inseparably conjoined. Christus in vita
passivam hahuit actionem; in mortc passionem activam sus-
tinuit; durn salutem operareiur in rnedio terrse. Bernard.
" In order to work out salvation for men on earth, Christ led a
life of passive action, and died a death of active passion."
And so it is also ascribed to his resurrection, with respect to
evidence and manifestation. But the death of Christ exclu-
sively as to his obedience is no where asserted as the cause of
eternal life, comprising that exceeding weight of glory where-
with it is accompanied.
Hitherto we have treated of and vindicated the imputation
of the active obedience of Christ to us, as the truth of it was
deduced from the preceding argument about the obligation of
the law of creation. I shall now briefly confirm it with other
reasons and testimonies.
1. That which Christ the mediator and surety of the cove-
nant, did in obedience to God, in the discharge and perform-
ance of his office, he did for us, and that is imputed to us. This
has been proved already, and it has too great an evidence of
truth to be denied. He was " born to us, given to us," Isa.
ix. 6. " For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 307
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the
righteousness of the law might he fulfilled in us," Rom. viii.
3, 4. Whatever is spoken of the grace, love and purpose of
God in sending or giving his Son, or of the love, grace and
condescension of the Son in coming and undertaking the work
of redemption designed to him, or of the office itself of a me-
diator or surety, gives testimony to this assertion. Yea, it is
the fundamental principle of the gospel, and of the faith of all
that truly believe. As for those by whom the divine person
and satisfaction of Christ are denied, whereby they overturn
the whole work of his mediation, we do not at present con-
sider them. Wherefore what he so did, is to be inquired into.
And
1. The Lord Christ our mediator and surety was in his hu-
man nature " made under the law," Gal iv. 1. That he was
not so for himself by the necessity of his condition, we have
proved before. It was therefore /or us. But as made " under
the law," he yielded obedience to it; this therefore was for us,
and is imputed to us. The exception of the Socinians that it
is the judicial law only that is intended, is too frivolous to be
insisted on. For he was made under that law whose curse
we are delivered from. And if we are delivered only from
the curse of the law of Moses, wherein they contend that (here
were neither promises nor threatening of eternal things, of any
thing beyond this present life, we are still in our sins, under
the curse of the moral law, notwithstanding all that he has
done for us. It is excepted with more colour of sobriety, that
he was made under the law only as to the curse of it. But it
is plain in the text, that Christ was made under the law as
we are under it. He was "made under the law to redeem
them that were under the law." And if he was not made so
as we are, there is no consequence from his being made under
it, to our redemption from it. But we are so under the law,
as not only to be obnoxious to the curse, but so as to be obliged
to all the obedience that it required, as has been proved. And
if the Lord Christ has redeemed us only from the curse of it by
undergoing it, leaving us in ourselves to answer its obligation
to obedience, we are not freed nor delivered. And the expres-
sion of "under the law," in the first place and properly, signi-
fies being under the obligation of it to obedience, and conse-
qently only with respect to the curse, Gal. iv. 21. "Tell me
ye that desire to be under the law." They did not desire to
308
THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
be under the curse of the law, but only its obhgation to obe-
dience; which ill all usage of speech, is the first proper sense
of that expression. Wherefore the Lord Christ being made
under the law for us, he yielded perfect obedience to it for us,
■which is therefore imputed to us. For that what he did, was
done for us, depends solely on imputation.
2. As he was thus made under the law, so he actually ful-
filled it by his obedience to it. So he testifies concerning him-
self; " Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the
prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil," Matt, v^ 17.
These words of our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded by the
Evangelist, the Jews continually object against the Christians,
as contradictory to what they pretend to be done by him,
namely that he has destroyed and taken away the law. And
Maimonides in his treatise De Fundamentis Lcgis, has many
blasphemous reflections on the Lord Christ as a false propliet
in this matter. But the reconciliation is plain and easy. There
was a twofold law given to the church, the moral and the cere-
monial law. The first as we have proved is of eternal obligation.
The other was given only for a time. That the latter of these
was to be taken awaj^ and abolished, the apostle proves with
invincible testimonies, out of the Old Testament against the
obstinate Jews, in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet was it not
to be taken away without its accomplishment, when it ceased
of itself. Wherefore our Lord Christ did no otherwise dissolve
or destroy that law, but by the accomplishment of it; and so
he put an end to it, as is fully declared, Epiies. ii. 14 — 16.
But the law xat' Hoxr^v, that which obliges all men to obe-
dience to God always, became woi xataxvaa-i, "to destroy;"
tliat is deffjjoac, to abolish it, as an aQBttjaii is ascribed to the
Mosaical law, Heb. ix.,* or xatapyrjaat, which the apostle de-
nies to be done by Christ, and faith in him, Rom. iii. 31. " Do
we then make void xafapyof^wEi' the law through faith? God
forbid; yea we establish the law." No^ov laravav is to confirm
its obligation to obedience, which is done by faith only with
respect to the moral law, the other being evacuated as to any
power of obliging to obedience. This therefore is the law which
our Lord Christ affirms that he came not to destroy; so he ex-
pressly declares in his ensuing discourse, showing both its
power of obliging us always to obedience, and giving an ex-
* In the same sense is the word used, Matt. xxiv. 2; xxvi. 6; xxvii. 40.
Marx xiii. 2; xiv. 58; xv. 21). Luke xxi. G. Acts v. 38, 3d ; vi. 14. Rom. xiv. 20.
2 Cor. V. 1. Gal. ii. 18, mostly with an accusative case, of the things spoken of.
TO THE LAW, DECLARED AND VINDICATED. 309
position of it. This law the Lord Christ came "to fulfil."
rijij^pcotfat tov voi^ov, in the Scripture is the same with iixTi-Kriaai,
tov vofiov in other writers; that is, to yield full perfect obedience
to the commands of the law, whereby they are absolutely ful-
filled; fiXrjpoiaai, voixov, is uot to make the law perfect; for it was
always vojxoi t-cuioi, a "perfect law," James i. 25, but to yield
perfect obedience to it; the same that our Saviour calls n-KTjpuiaai
Tiaaav Sixaioavvtiv, Matt, iii. 3, 15, " to fulfil all righteousness;"
that is, by obedience to all God's commands and institutions,
as is evident in the place. So the apostle uses the same ex-
pression, Rom. xiii. S, •'"'he that loveth another hath fulfilled
the law."
It is a vain exception that Christ fulfilled the law by his doc-
trine, in the exposition of it. The opposition between the words
to fuljil and to destroy, will admit of no such sense. And our
Saviour himself expounds this fulfilling of the law, by doing
the commands of it, v. 19. Wherefore the Lord Christ, as our
mediator and surety, fulfilling the law by yielding perfect obe-
dience thereto, did it for us, and to us it is imputed.
This is plainly affirmed by the Apostle, Rom. v. IS, 19.
" Therefore as by the ofience of one, judgment came upon all
men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the
free gift came upon all men to justification of life. For as by
the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obe-
dience of one shall many be made righteous." The full plea
from and vindication of this testimony, I refer to its proper
place in the testimonies given to the imputation of the righteous-
ness of Christ to our justification in general. Here I shall only
observe that the Apostle expressly and in terms affirms that by
the obedience of Christ, we are made righteous or justified,
which we cannot be but by the imputation of it to us. I have
met with nothing that had the appearance of any sobriety for
the eluding of this express testimony, but only, that by the
obedience of Chriist, his death and sufferings are intended,
wherein he was obedient to God; as the Apostle says, he was
"obedient unto death; the death of the cross," Phil. ii. S. But
yet there is herein no colour of probability. For, (1) It is ac-
knowledged that there was such a near conjunction and alli-
ance between the obedience of Christ, and his sufferings, that
though they may be distinguished, yet can they not be sepa-
rated. He suffered in the whole course of his obedience, from
the womb to the cross; and he obeyed in all his sufferings
to the last moment wherein he expired. But yet are they really
310 THE IMPUTATION OF THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST, ETC.
things distinct, as we have proved; and they were so in him,
who "learned obedience by the things that he suffered," Heb.
V. 8. (2) In this place vTtaxorj, obedience, ver. 19; and Stxatu-^a,
righteousness, ver. IS, are the same. " By the righteousness of
one," and " by the obedience of one," are the same. But suffer-
ing, as suffering, is not righteousness. For if it w^e, then every
one that suffers what is due to him, should bS' Wghteous, and
so be justified, even the devil himself. (3) The righteousness
and obedience here intended, are opposed to " the offence," but
the offence intended was an actual transgression of the law; so
is rtaparttcj^a, a fall froni or a fall in the course of obedience.
Wherefore the Stxatco^uaor righteousness must be an actual obe-
dience to the commands of the law, or the force of the Apostle's
reasoning and antithesis cannot be understood. (4) Particularly
it is such an obedience as is opposed to the disobedience of
Adam. " One man's disobedience," " one man's obedience."
But the disobedience of Adam was an actual transgression of
the law; and therefore the obedience of Christ here intended,
was his active obedience to the law; which is what we plead
for. And I shall not at present further pursue the argument,
because the force of it in the confirmation of the truth contend-
ed for, will be included in those that follow.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION PROVED FROM THE DIFFERENCE OF THE
COVENANTS.
That which we plead in tlie third place to our purpose, is the
difference between the two covenants. And herein it may be
observed:
1. That by the two covenants I understand those which
were absolutely given to the whole church, and were all to
bring it to a complete and perfect state; that is the covenant
of works, or the law of our creation as it was given to us, with
promises and threatenings, or rewards and punishments an-
nexed to it: and the covenant of grace revealed and proposed
in the first promise. As to the covenant of Sinai, and the New
Testament as actually confirmed in the death of Christ, with
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION TROVED. 311
all the spiritual privileges thence arising, and the differences
between them, they belong not to our present argument.
2. The whole entire nature of the covenant of works con-
sisted in this; that upon our personal obedience, according to
the law and rule of it, we should be accepted with God, and
rewarded with him. Herein the essence of it consisted. And
whatever covenant proceeds on these terms, or has the nature
of them in it, however it may be varied, with additions or al-
terations, it is the same covenant still, and not another. As in
the renovation of the promise wherein the essence of the cove-
nant of grace was contained, God did ofitimes make other ad-
ditions to it, as to Abraham and David; yet was it still the
same covenant for the substance of it, and not another; so.
whatever variations may be made in, or additions to the dis-
pensation of the first covenant, so long as this rule is retained,
"Do this and live;" it is still the same covenant, for the sub-
stance and essence of it.
3. Hence two things belonged to this covenant. (1) That
all things were transacted immediately between God and man.
There was no mediator hi it, no one to undertake any thing,
either on the part of Grod or man, between them. For the
whole depending on every one's personal obedience, there was
no place for a mediator. (2) That nothing but perfect sinless
obedience would be accepted with God, or preserve the cove-
nant in its primitive state and condition. There was nothing
in it as to pardon of sin, no provision for any defect in personal
obedience.
4. Wherefore this covenant being once established between
God and man, there could be no new covenant made unless
the essential form of it were of another nature; namely, that
our own personal obedience be not the rule and cause of our
acceptance and justification before God. For whilst this is so,
as was before observed, the covenant is still the same; how-
ever the dispensation of it may be reformed or reduced, to suit
our present state and condition. What grace soever might be
introduced into it, that could not be so, which excluded all
works from being the cause of our justification. But if a new
covenant be made, such grace must be provided as is abso-
lutely inconsistent with any works of ours, as to the first ends
of the covenant, as the Apostle declares, Rom. xi. (i.
5. Wherefore the covenant of grace, supposing it a new,
real, absolute covenant, and not a reformation of the dispensa-
tion of the old, or a reduction of it to the use of our present
312 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION PROVED.
condition (as some imagine it to be) must differ in the essence,
substance, and nature of it from that first covenant of works.
And this it cannot do, if we are to be justified before God on
our personal obedience, wherein the essence of the first cove-
nant consisted. If then the righteousness wherewith we are
justified before God, be our own, our own personal righteous-
ness; we are yet under the first covenant, and no other.
6. But things in the new covenant are indeed quite other-
wise. For (1) it is of grace, which wholly excludes works;
that is, so of grace, that our own works are not the means of
justification before God; as in the places before alleged. (2) It
has a mediator and surety, which is built alone on this suppo-
sition, that what we cannot do in ourselves which was origi-
nally required of us, and what the law of the first covenant
cannot enable us to perform, that should be performed for us,
by our mediator and surety. And if this be not included in
the very first notion of a mediator and surety, yet it is in that
of a mediator or surety who voluntarily interposes himself upon
an open acknowledgment, that those for whom he undertakes,
were utterly insufficient to perform wliat was required of them :
on which supposition all the truth of the Scripture depends.
It is one of the very first notions of Christianity, that the Lord
Christ was " given to us," '• born to us," that he came as a
"mediator," to do for us what we could not do for ourselves,
and not merely to suffer what we had deserved. And here
instead of our own righteousness, we have the righteousness
of God; instead of being righteous in ourselves before God, he
is " the Lord our righteousness." And nothing but a right-
eousness of another kind and nature, to justification before
God, could constitute another covenant. Wherefore the right-
eousness whereby we are justified, is the righteousness of
Christ imputed to us, or we are still under the law, under the
covenant of works.
It will be said that our personal obedience is by none assert-
ed to be the righteousness wherewith we are justified before
God, in the same manner as it was under the covenant of
works. But the argument speaks not as to the manner or
way whereby it is so; but to the thing itself If it be so in
any way or manner under what qualifications soever, we are
under that covenant still. If it be of works any way, it is not
of grace at all. But it is added, that the differences are such
as are sufficient to constitute covenants effectually distinct. As
(1) Perfect, sinless obedience was required in the first cove-
THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SORTS OF WORKS, ETC. 313
nant; but in the new, that which is imperfect and accompa-
nied with many sins and failings, is accepted. Jlnswer. This
is gratis dictum, and begs the question. No righteousness to
justification before God, is or can be accepted, but what is per-
fect. (2) Grace is the original fountain and cause of all our
acceptance before God in the new covenant. Jinswer. It was
so also in the old. The creation of man in original righteous-
ness was an effect of divine grace, benignity, and goodness.
And the reward of eternal life in the enjoyment of God, was
of mere sovereign grace: yet what was then of works, was not
of grace; no more is it at present. (3) There would then have
been merit of works, which is now excluded. Answer. Such
a merit as arises from an equality and proportion between
works and reward, by the rule of commutative justice, would,
not have been in the works of the first covenant; and in no
other sense is it now rejected by them that oppose the imputa-
tion of the righteousness of Christ. (4) All is now resolved
into the merit of Christ, upon the account whereof alone, our
own personal righteousness is accepted before God to our jus-
tification. Answer. The question is not on what account, nor
for what reason it is so accepted, but whether it be or not;
seeing its so being is effectually constitutive of a covenant of
works.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SORTS OF WORKS FROM AN INTEREST IN JUS-
TIFICATION. WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE WORKS OF
IT, IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
We shall take our fourth argument from the express exclusion
of all works of what sort soever from our justification before
God. For this alone is that which we plead; namely, that no
acts or works of our own, are the causes or conditions of our
justification; but that the whole of it is resolved into the free
grace of God, through Jesus Christ, as the mediator and surety
of the covenant. To this purpose the Scripture speaks express-
ly, Rom. iii. 28. "Therefore we conclude, that a man is justi-
fied by faith, without the works of the law." Rom. iv. 5; " But
unto him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
27
314 WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Rom. xi. 6.
" If it be of grace, then is it not of works." Gal. ii. 1 6. " Know-
ing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the
works of the law, for by the works of the law, shall no flesh be
justified." Eph. ii. S, 9. " For by grace ye are saved through
faith, not of works, lest any man should boast." Tit. iii. 5.
"Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but
according unto his mercy he hath saved us,"
, These and the like testimonies are express, and in positive
terms assert all that we contend for. And I am persuaded, that
no unprejudiced person, whose mind is not prepossessed with
notions and distinctions, whereof not the least title is offered to
them from the texts mentioned, nor elsewhere, can but judge
that the law in every sense of it, and all sorts of works what-
ever, that at any time, or by any means, sinners or believers do
or can perform, are, not in this or that sense, but every way
and in all senses, excluded from our justification before God.
And if it be so, it is the righteousness of Christ alone that we
must betake ourselves to, or this matter must cease for ever.
And this inference the Apostle himself makes from one of the
testimonies before mentioned, namely that of Gal. ii. 16; for he
adds upon it; "I through the law am dead to the law, that I
might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless
I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I
now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace
of God; for if righteousness come by the law then is Christ
dead in vain."
Our adversaries are extremely divided amongst themselves,
and can come to no consistency, as to the sense and meaning of
the Apostle in these assertions; for what is proper and obvious
to the understanding of all men, especially from the opposition
that is made between the law and works on tlie one hand, and
faith, grace, and Christ on the other, (which are opposed as in-
consistent in this matter of our justification) they will not allow,
nor can do so without the ruin of the opinions they plead for.
Wherefore their various conjectures shall be examined, as well
to show their inconsistency among themselves, by whom the
truth is opposed, as to confirm our present argument.
1. Some say it is the ceremonial law alone, and the works
of it that are intended; or the law as given to JNIoses on Mount
MORKS OF IT, IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 315
Sinai, containing that entire covenant that was afterwards to
be abolished. Tliis was of old the common opinion of the
schoolmen, though it be now generally exploded. And the
opinion lately contended for, that the Apostle Paul excludes
justification from the works of the law, not because no man
can yield that perfect obedience which the law requires, or ex-
cludes works absolutely perfect, and sinless obedience; but be-
cause the law itself, which he intends, could not justify any by
the observation of it, is nothing but the renovation of this ob-
solete notion, that it is the ceremonial law only, or the law
given on Mount Sinai, abstracted from the grace of the pro-
mise, which could not justify any, in the observation of its rites
and commands. But of all other conjectures, this is the most
impertinent and contradictory to the design of the Apostle, and
is therefore rejected by Bellarmine himself. For the Apostle
treats of that law, the doers of which shall be justified, Rom.
ii. 13. And the authors of this opinion would have it to be a
law that can justify none of them that do it. That law he in-
tends whereby is the knowledge of sin; for he gives this reason,
why we cannot be justified by the works of it, namely, because
by it, is the knowledge of sin, iii. 20. And by what law is the
knowledge of sin, he expressly declares, where he affirms, that
"he had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt
not covet," vii. 7; which is the moral law alone. That law he
designs, which stops the mouth of all sinners, and makes all
the world obnoxious to the judgment of God, iii. 19; which no
law can do but the law written in the heart of men at their
creation, ii. 14, 15; that law which if a man do the works of
it, he shall live in them; Gal. iii. 12; Rom. x. 5; and which
brings all men under the curse for sin. Gal. iii. 10; the law that
is established by faith and not made void; Rom. iii. 31; which
the ceremonial law is not, nor the covenant of Sinai; the law
whose righteousness is to be fulfilled in us; Rom. viii. 4. And
the instance which the Apostle gives of justification without the
works of that law which he intends, namely that of Abraham,
was some himdreds of years before the giving of the ceremo-
nial law. Neither yet do I say that the ceremonial law and
tlie works of it are excluded from the intention of the Apostle;
for when that law was given, the observation of it was an espe-
cial instance of that obedience we owed to the first table of the
decalogue; and the exclusion of the works thereof from our
justification; in as much as the performance of them was part
of that moral obedience which we owed to God, is exclusive
316 WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE
of all other works also. But that it is alone here intended, or
that law which could never justify any by its observation, al-
though it was observed in due manner, is a fond imagination,
and contradictory to the express assertion of tiie Apostle. And
whatever is pretended to the contrary, this opinion is expressly
rejected by Augustine.* "Lest any one should think, that the
Apostle had said that no one was justified by that law, which,
under the ancient sacraments, contains many figurative pre-
cepts, whence also is that circumcision of the flesh, lie imme-
diately subjoins what law he means; and adds, ' By the law is
the knowledge of sin.'" And to the same purpose he speaks
again. t " Not only those works of the law contained in the
ancient sacraments, which, since the revelation of the New
Testament are not observed by Christians, such as circumcision,
the ceremonial observance of the Sabbath, abstinence from par-
ticular meats, the offering of animals in sacrifice, the new
moons, unleavened bread, &c.; but also the command of the
law, 'Thou shalt not covet,' which every Christian acknow-
ledges to be universally binding, do not justify a man, unless
through the faith of Jesus Christ, and the grace of God through
our Lord Jesus Christ."
2. Some say the Apostle only excludes the perfect works re-
quired by the law of innocency, which is a sense diametrically
opposite to that foregoing. But this best pleases the Socinians.J
" Paul in this passage is treating about perfect works, and there-
fore he adds, ' without the works of the law,' to show that he
* Ne quisquam putaret liic Apostoium dixissc ea lege neminem justificari, qua;
in sacranicntis vetcribus multa continent figurata prBeccpta, unde etiam est ista
circumcisio carnis, continuo subjtingit, quani dixerit legem ct addit ; per legem
cognitio peccati, lib. dc Spirit, et Liter, cap. 8.
t Non solum ilia opera Icgis quae sunt in vetcribus sacramentis, et nunc revelato
Testamento novo non obscrvantur a Ciiristianis, sicut est circumcisio prseputii, et
sabbali carnalis vacatio, et a quibusdam eseis abstinentia, ct peeorum in sacrifieiis
immolatio, et neomenia et azymuni, et ctetera htijusmodi, verum etiam illud quod
in lege dictum est, non concupisces, quod ubique et Christianus nullus ambigit
esse dicendum, non justificat liominem, nisi per fideni Jesu Christi et gratiam JJci
per Jcsum Christum dominum nostrum. Epist. 200.
t Paulus agit dc operibus et perfectis in hoc dicto, ideo eniin adjccit, sine ope-
ribus legis, ut indicaretur loqui eum de operibus a lege requisitis, et sic de perpe-
tua ct perfectissima divinoruin prseceptorum obcdicntia sicut lex requirit. Cum
autem talem obedientiam qualem lex requirit ncino prcestare possit, ideo subjecit
Apostolus nos justificaii fide, id est, fiducia ct obedientia ea quantum quisque
prcBstare potest, et quotidic quam maximum pr;estare studct, et connilitur. Sine
operibus legis, id est, etsi interim perfecte totam legem sicut dcbebat complcre
nequit. — Socinus.
WORKS OF IT, IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 317
is speaking of works required by the law, and consequently, of
that perpetual and perfect observance of the divine commands
which the law requires. But as no man can render such an
obedience as the law demands, therefore the Apostle adds that
we are 'justified by faith/ that is by such a confidence and
obedience as every one can render, and daily labours and
strives as much as in him lies to render." But (1) We have
herein the whole granted of what we plead for; namely, that
it is the moral indispensable law of God that is intended by the
Apostle; and that by the works of it no man can be justified,
yea, that all the works of it are excluded from our justification;
for it is, saith the Apostle, " without works." The works of
this law being performed according' to it, will justify them that
perform them, as he affirms, Rom. ii. 13. and the Scripture else-
where witnesses, that "he that doth them, shall live in them:"
but because this can never be done by any sinner, therefore all
consideration of them is excluded from our justification. (2) It
is a wild imagination that the, -dispute of the Apostle is to this
purpose, that the perfect works of the law will not justify us,
but imperfect works, which answer not the law, will do so, (3)
Granting the law intended, to be the moral law of God, the law
of our creation, there is no such distinction intimated in the
least by the Apostle, that we are not justified by the perfect
works of it which we cannot perform, but by some imperfect
works that we can i)erform, and labour so to do. Nothing
is more foreign to the design and express words of his
whole discourse. (4) The evasion which they betake them-
selves to, that the Apostle opposes justification by faith to that
of works which he excludes, is altogether vain in this sense.
For they would have this faith to be our obedience to the di-
vine commands in that imperfect manner which we can attain
to. For when the Apostle has excluded all such justification
by the law and the works thereof, he does not advance in op-
position to them and in their room, our own faith and obedience;
but adds, "being justified freely by his grace through the re-
demption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God has set forth to be
a propitiation througlr faith in his blood."
3. Some of late among ourselves, and'-they want not them
who have gone before them, aflirm that the works wliich the
Apostle excludes from justification, are only the outward works
of the law, performed without an inward principle of faith,
fear, or the love of God. Servile works attended to from a
respect to the threatening of the law, are those which will nat
318 WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE
justify us. But this opinion is not onlj'- false but impious. For
(1) The Apostle excludes the works of Abraham which were
not such outward servile works as are imagined. (2) The
works excluded are those which the law requires; and " the
law is holy, just and good." But a law that requires only out-
ward works without internal love to God, is neither holy, just
nor good. (3) The law condenms all such works as are sepa-
rated from the internal principle of faiih, fear and love, for it
requires that in all our obedience we should love the Lord our
God with all our hearts. And the Apostle says not, that we
are not justified by the works which the law condemns, but by
them which the law commands. (4) It is highly reflecting on
the honour of God, that lie whose divine prerogative it is to
know the hearts of men alone, and who, therefore regards them
alone in all the duties of their obedience, should give a law re-
quiring outward servile works only; for if the law intended
require more, then are not those the only works excluded.
4. Some say in general it is the Jewish law that is intended,
and think thereby to cast off the whole difficulty. But if by
the Jewish law they intend only the ceremonial law, or the law
absolutely as given by JMoses, we have already showed the
vanity of that pretence. But if they mean thereby the whole
law or rule of obedience given to the cliurch of Israel under
the Old Testament, they express much of the truth; it may be
more than they designed.
5. Some say that it is works, with a conceit of merit, that
makes the reward to be of debt, and not of grace, that are ex-
cluded by the Apostle. But no such distinction appears in the
text or context. For, (1) The Apostle excludes all works of
the law, that is, that tlie law requires of us in a way of obe-
dience, be they of what sort they will. (2) The law requires
no works with a conceit of merit. (3) Works of the law origi-
nally, included no merit, as that which arises from the propor-
tion of one thing to another in the balance of justice, and in
that sense only is it rejected by those who plead for an inte-
rest of works in justification. (4) The merit which the Apostle
excludes, is that which is inseparable from works, so that it
cannot be excluded, unless the works themselves be so. And
to their merit two things concur: (1) A comparative boasting,
that is, not absolutely in the sight of God, which follows the
merilum ex condigno, which some poor sinful mortals have
fancied in their works; but that which gives one man a ])re-
ference above another in the obtaining of justification, which
WORKS OF IT, IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 3 19
grace will not allow. Rom. iv. 2. (2) That the reward be not
absolutely of grace, but that respect be had therein to works,
which makes it so far to be of debt; not out of an internal con-
dignity which would not have been under the law of creation,
but out of some congruity with respect to the promise of God,
Rom. V. 4. In these two regards merit is inseparable from
works; and the Holy Ghost utterly to exclude it, excludes all
works from which it is inseparable, as it is from all. Where-
fore (5) the Apostle speaks not one word about the exclusion
of the merit of works only ; but he excludes all works whatever,
and that by this argument, that the admission of them, would
necessarily introduce merit in the sense described, which is
inconsistent with grace. And although some think that they
are injuriously dealt with, when they are charged with main-
taining merit in their asserting the influence of our works upon
our justification; yet those of ihem who best understand them-
selves, and the controversy itself, are not so averse from some
kind of merit, as knowing that it is inseparable from works.
6. Some contend that the Apostle excludes only works
wrought before believing, in the strength of our own wills and
natural abilities, without the aid of grace. Works they sup-
pose required by the law are such as we perform by the direc-
tion and command of the law, alone. ]But the law of faith
requires works in the strength of the supplies of grace which
are not excluded. This is that which the most learned and
judicious of the church of Rome now generally betake them-
selves to. Those who amongst us plead for works in our jus-
tification, use many distinctions to explain their minds, and
free their opinion from a coincidence with that of the Papists;
yet, they deny the name of merit, and the thing itself in the
sense of the church of Rome, as it is renounced likewise by all
the Socinians. Wherefore they make use of the preceding
evasion, that merit is excluded by the Apostle, and works only
as they are meritorious, although the Apostle's plain argument
be that they are excluded because such a merit as is incon-
sistent with grace, is inseparable from their admission.
But the Roman church cannot so part with merit. Where-
fore they are to find out a sort of works to be excluded only,
which they are content to part with as not meritorious. Such
are those before described, wrought as they say before believ-
ing, and without the aids of grace; and such they say, are all
the works of the law. And this they do with some more mo-
desty and sobriety, than those amongst us, who would have
320 WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE
only external works, and observances to be intended. For
they grant that sundry internal works, as those of attrition, sor-
row for sin, and the like, are of this nature. But the works
of the law it is they say that are excluded. But this whole
plea, and all the sophisms wherewith it is countenanced, have
been so discussed and defeated by Protestant writers of all
sorts against Bellarmine and others, that it is needless to repeat
the same things, or to add any thing to them. And the false-
hood of it will be sufficiently evinced, in what we shall imme-
diately prove concerning the law and works intended by the
Apostle. However the heads of the demonstration of the
truth to the contrary may be touched on. And (1) the Apostle
excludes all works without distinction or exception. And we
are not to distinguish where the law does not distinguish before
us. (2) All the works of the law are excluded, therefore all
works wrought after believing by the aids of grace, are ex-
cluded. For they are all required by the law. See Psal, cxix.
35. Rom. vii. 22. Works not required by the law, are no less
an abomination to God, than sins against the law. (3) The
works of believers after conversion, performed by the aids of
grace, are expressly excluded by the Apostle. So are those
of Abraham after he had been a believer many years, and
abounded in them to the praise of God. So he excludes his
own works after his conversion, Gal. ii. 16. 1 Cor. iv. 4. Phil.
iii. 9. And so he excludes the works of all other believers;
Ephes. ii. 9, 10. (4) All works are excluded that might give
countenance to boasting, Rom. iv. 2; iii. 17. Eph. ii. 9. 1 Cor.
i. 29 — 31. But this is done more by the good works of re-
generate persons, than by any works of unbelievers. (5) The
law requires faith and love in all oiu' works, and therefore if
all the works of the law be excluded, the best works of be-
lievers are so. (6) All works are excluded which are opposed
to grace working freely in our justification. But this all works
whatever are, Rom,, xi. 6. (7) In the Epistle to the Galatians
the Apostle excludes from our justification all those works
which the false teachers pressed as necessary thereto. But
they urged the necessity of the works of believers, and those
who were by grace already converted to God. For those
upon whom they pressed them to this end, were already ac-
tually so. (S) Tliey are good works that the Apostle excludes
from our justification. For there can be no pretence of justi-
fication by those works that are not good, or which have not
all things essentially requisite to make tliem so. But such are
WORKS OF IT, IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 321
all the works of unbelievers, performed without the aids of
grace; they are not good, nor as such accepted with God; but
want what is essentially requisite to the constitution of good
works. And it is ridiculous to think that the Apostle disputes
about the exclusion of such works from our justification, as
no man in his wits would think to have any place therein.
(9) The reason why no man can be justified by the law, is be-
cause no man can yield perfect obedience thereto. For by
perfect obedience the law will justify, Rom. ii. 13; x. 5. Where-
fore all works are excluded that are not absolutely perfect.
But this the best works of believers are not; as we have
proved before. (10) If there be a reserve for the works of
believers performed by the aid of grace in our justification, it
is, that either they may be con-causes thereof, or be indispen-
sably subservient to those things that are so. That they are
con-causes of our justification, is not absolutely affirmed;
neither can it be said, that they are necessarily subservient to
them that are so. They are not so to the efficient cause thereof,
which is the grace and favour of God alone, Rom. iii. 24, 25;
iv. 16. Eph. ii. 8, 9. Rev. i. 6. Nor are they so to the meri-
torious cause of it, which is Christ alone. Acts xiii. 38; xxvi.
IS. 1 Cor. i. 30. 2 Cor. v. 18 — 21; nor to the material cause of
it; which is the righteousness of Christ alone; Rom. x, 3,4.
Nor are they so to faith in what place soever it be stated. For
not only is faith only mentioned, wherever we are taught the
way how the righteousness of Christ is derived and commu-
nicated to us, without any intimation of the conjunction of
works with it; but also, as to our justification they are placed
in opposition and contradiction one to the other, Rom. iii. 28.
And sundry other things are pleadable to the same purpose.
7. Some aflirm that the Apostle excludes all works from our
first justification, but not from the second, or as some sj)eak, the
continuation of our justification. But we have before examined
these distinctions, and found them groundless.
Evident it is therefore, that men put themselves into an un-
certain, slippery station, where they know not what to fix upon,
nor wherein to find any such appearance of truth as to give
them countenance in denying the plain and frequently repeated
assertion of the Apostle.
Wherefore in tlie confirmation of the present argument, I
shall more particularly inquire into what it is, that the Apostle
intends by the law and works whereof he treats. For as to our
justification whatever they are, they are absolutely and uni-
322 WHAT INTENDED BV THE LAW, AND THE
versally opposed to grace, faith, the righteousness of God, and
the blood of Christ, as those which are ahogether inconsistent
with them. Neither can this be denied or questioned by any,
seeing it is the plain design of the Apostle to evince that incon-
sistency,
1. Wherefore in general, it is evident that the Apostle by the
law and the works thereof intended what the Jews with whom
he had to do, understood by the law and their own whole obe-
dience thereto. I suppose this cannot be denied. For without
a concession of it, there is nothing proved against them, nor
are they in any thing instructed by him. Suppose those terms
equivocal, and to be taken in one sense by him, and by them
in another, and nothing can be rightly concluded from what is
spoken of them. Wherefore the meaning of these terms the
laiu and ivorks, the Apostle takes for granted as very well
known, and agreed on between liimself and those with whom
he had to do.
2. The Jews by the law intended what the Scriptures of the
Old Testament meant by that expression. For they are no-
where blamed for any false notion concerning the law, or that
they esteemed any thing to be so, but what was so indeed, and
what was so called in the Scripture. Their present oral law
was not yet hatched, though tlie Pharisees were brooding it.
3. The law under the Old Testament, immediately refers to
the law given at iMount Sinai, nor is there any distinct mention
of it before. This is commonly called the law absolutely; but
most frequently the "law of God," the " law of the Lord ;" and
sometimes the "law of Moses," because of his especial minis-
try in the giving of it. " Remember the law of Moses my ser-
vant, which I commanded unto him," Mai. iv. 4. And this
the Jews intended by the law.
4. Of the law so given at Horeb, there was a distribution
into three parts. (1) There was the " ten words;" Deut. iv. 13;
X. 4; that is, the ten commandments written on two tables of
stone. This part of the law was first given; was the founda-
tion of the whole, and contained that perfect obedience which
was required of mankind by the law of creation, and was now
received into the church, with the highest attestations of its in-
dispensable obligation to obedience or punishment. (2) o'pn
which the LXX render by 6txaiw/tara, that is jura; " rights or
statutes;" but the Latin from ihence j ustificationes, "justifica-
tions," which has given great occasion of mistake in many both
ancient and modern divines. We call it the ceremonial law.
WORKS OF IT, IX THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 323
The Apostle terms this part of the law disthictly a'o^o? ivtoxuv
iv Soyfiaao, Ephes. ii. 15. " The law of commandments contain-
ed in ordinances;" that is, consisting in a multitude of arbitrary-
commands. (3) a'Psz'D wiiich we commonly call the judicial
law. This distribution of the law shuts up the Old Testament,
asjt is used in places innumerable before, only the nnai ms'j; the
" ten words," is expressed by the general word ^•^'^n the law,
Mai. iv. 4.
5. These being the parts of the law given to the church in
Sinai, the whole of it is constantly called '' the law," that is,
the instruction (as the word signifies) that God gave to the
church, in the rule of obedience which he prescribed to it. This
is the constant signification of that word in Scripture, where it
is taken absolutely; and thereon does not signify precisely the
law as given at Horeb, but comprehends with it all the revela-
tions that God made to the Old Testament, in the explanation
and confirmation of that law, in rules, motives, directions and
enforcements of obedience.
6. Wherefore " the law" is the whole rule of obedience v/hich
God gave to the church under the Old Testament, with all the
efficacy wherewith it was accompanied by the ordinances of
God, including in it all the promises andthreatenings, that might
be motives to the obedience tliat God required. This is that
which God and the church called the law under the Old Testa-
ment, and which the Jews so called with whom our Apostle
had to do. That which we call the moral law was the founda-
tion of the whole; and those parts of it which we call the ju-
dicial and ceremonial law, were peculiar instances of the obe-
dience which the church under the Old Testament was obliged
to, in the especial polity and divine worship, which at that
season were necessary to it. And two things the Scripture tes-
tifies to, concerning this law.
1. That it was a perfect complete rule of all that internal,
spiritual and moral obedience which God required of the
church. " The law of the Lord is perfect, convening the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple,"
Psalm xix. 7. And it was so of all the external duties of obe-
dience, for matter and manner, time and season; that in both
the church might walk "acceptably before God," Isa. viii. 20.
And although the original duties of the moral part of the law
are often preferred before the particular instances of obedience
in duties of outward worship; yet the whole law was always
the whole rule of all the obedience internal and external that
324
WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE
God required of the church, and which he accepted in them
that behaved.
2. That this law, this rule of obedience as it was ordained
of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by-
virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, to whose adminis-
tration it was adapted, and which its introduction on Sinai did
not disannul, was accotnpanied with a power and efficacy en-
abling to obedience. The law itself as merely preceptive and
commanding, administered no power or ability to those that
were under its authority to yield obedience to it; no more do
the mere commands of the gospel. Moreover under the Old
Testament it enforced obedience on the minds and consciences
of men, by the manner of its first delivery, and the severity of
its sanction, so as to fill them with fear and bondage; and was
besides accompanied with such burlhensome rules of outward
worship, as made it a heavy yoke to the people. But as it was
God's doctrine, teaching, instruction, in all acceptable obedience
to himself, and was adapted to the covenant of Abraham, it
was accompanied with an administration of effectual grace,
procuring and promoting obedience in the church. And the
law is not to be looked on as separated from those aids to obe-
dience, which God administered under the Old Testament,
whose effects are therefore ascribed to the law itself. See Psal.
i, xix. cxix.
3. This being the law in the sense of the Apostle, and those
with whom he had todo,our next inquiry is, what was their sense
of works, or works of the law ? And I say it is plain that they
intended hereby, the universal sincere obedience of the church
to God, according to this law. And other works, tiie law of God
acknowledges not; yea, it expressly condemns all works that
have any such defect in them, as to render them unacceptable
to God. Hence notwithstanding all the commands that God
had positively given for the strict observance of sacrifices, offer-
ings, and the like, yet when the people performed them with-
out faith and love, he expressly affirms that he commanded
them not, that is, to be observed in such a manner. In these
works therefore consisted their personal rigliteousness, as "they
walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord,
blameless," Luke i. 6, wherein they "instantly served God day
and night," Acts xxvi. 7. And this they esteemed to be their
own righteousness, their righteousness according to the law, as
really it was, Phil. iii. 6, 9. For although the Pharisees had
greatly corrupted the doctrine of the law, and put false glosses
WORKS OF IT, IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUL. 325
on sundry precepts of it; yet, that the church in those days did
by the works of the law, understand either ceremonial duties
only, or external works, or works with a conceit of merit, or
works wrought without an internal principle of faith, and love
to God, or any thing but their own personal sincere obedience
to the whole doctrine and rule of the law, there is nothing that
should give the least colour of imagination. For,
1. All this is perfectly stated in the suffrage which the scribe
gave to the declaration of the sense and design of the law, with
the nature of the obedience which it requires, that was made
at his request by our blessed Saviour, Mark xii. 28 — 33. "And
one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning to-
gether, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked
him, which is the first commandment of all," or as it is, Matt,
xxii. 36. " Which is the great commandment in the law? And
Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, hear,
0 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first
commandment: and the second is like, namely this, thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. And the scribe said unto him,
well. Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and
there is none but he. And to love him with all the heart, and
with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all
the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than
all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices." And this is so express-
ly given by Moses as the sum of the law, namely, faith and
love, as the principle of all our obedience. Dent. vi. 4, 5, that it
is marvellous what should induce any learned sober person to
fix upon any other sense of it; as that it respected ceremonial
or external works only, or such as may be wrought without
faith or love. This is the law concerning which the Apostle
disputes, and this the obedience wherein the works of it con-
sist. And more than this, in the way of obedience, God never
did nor will require of any in this world. Wherefore the law,
which the Apostle excludes from justification, is that whereby
we are obliged to believe in God as one God, the only God, and
love him with all our hearts and souls, and our neighbours as
ourselves. And what works there are, or can be in any persons
regenerate or not regenerate, to be performed in the strength
of grace, or without it, that are acceptable to God, that may
not be reduced to these heads, I know not.
2. The Apostle himself declares, that it is the law and the
28
326 WHAT INTENDED BY THE LAW, AND THE
works of it in the sense we have expressed, that he excludes
from our justification.
For the law he speaks of, is the " law of righteousness,"
Rom. ix. 31, the law whose righteousness is to be fulfilled in
us, that we may be accepted with God, and freed from con-
demnation, Rom. viii. 3; that, in obedience whereto our own
personal righteousness consists, whether what we judge so,
before conversion, Rom. x. 3, or what is so after it, Phil. iii. 9,
the law which if a man observe, he shall live, and be justified
before God, Rom. ii. 13. Gal. iii. 12. Rom. x. 5; that law which
is "holy, just, and good," which discovers and condemns all
sin whatever, Rom. vii. 7. 9.
From what has been discoursed, these two things are evi-
dent in the confirmation of our present argument. (1) That
the law intended by the Apostle, when he denies that by the
works of the law any can be justified, is the entire rule and
guide of our obedience to God, even as to the whole frame
and spiritual constitution of our souls, with all the acts of obe-
dience or duties that he requires of us. And (2) that the works
of this law which he so frequently and plainly excludes from
our justification, and therein opposes to the grace of God, and
the blood of Christ, are all the duties of obedience, internal,
supernatural, external, ritual, however we are or may be en-
abled to perform them, that God requires of us. And these
things excluded, it is the righteousness of Christ alone imputed
to us, on the account whereof we are justified before God.
The truth is, so far as I can discern, the real difference that
is at this day amongst us about the doctrine of our justification
before God, is the same that was between the Apostle and the
Jews, and no other. But controversies in religion make a
great appearance of being new, when ihey are only varied and
made different, by the new terms and expressions that are in-
troduced into the handling of them. So has it fallen out in the
controversy about nature and grace; for as to the true nature
of it, it is the same in these days, as it was between the Apos-
tle Paul and the Pharisees, between Austin and Pelagius after-
wards. But it has now passed through so many forms and
dresses of words, that it can scarce be known to be what it
was. Many at this day will condenrn both Pelagius and the
doctrine that he taught, in the words wherein he taught it, and
yet embrace and approve of the things themselves which he
mtended. The iiuroduction of every change in philosophical
learning, gives an appearance of a change in the controversies
WORKS OF IT, IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 327
which are managed thereby. But take off the covering of
philosophical expressions, distinctions, metaphysical notions,
and futile terms of art, which some of the ancient schoolmen
and later disputants have cast upon it, and the difference about
grace and nature is amongst us all, the same that it was of old,
and as it is allowed by the Socinians.
Thus the Apostle treating of our justification before God,
does it in these terms which are botli expressive of the thing
itself, and were well understood by them with whom he had
to do; such as the Ploly Spirit in their revelation had conse-
crated to their proper use. Thus on tlie one hand he expressly
excludes the law, our own works, our own righteousness, from,
any interest therein; and in opposition to, and as inconsistent
with them in the matter of justification, he ascribes it wholly
to the righteousness of God, righteousness imputed to us, the
obedience of Christ, Christ made righteousness to us, the blood
of Christ as a propitiation, faith, receiving Christ and the atone-
ment. There is no awakened conscience guided by the least
beam of spiritual illumination, but in itself, plainly understands
these things, and what is intended in them. But through the
admission of exotic learning, with philosophical terms and no-
tions, into the way of teaching spiritual things in religion, a
new face and appearance is put on the whole matter, and a
composition made between those things which the Apostle
directly opposes as contrary and inconsistent. Hence are all
our discourses about preparations, dispositions, conditions,
merits r/e congruo and condigno, with such a train of disthic-
tions, that if some bounds be not fixed to the inventing and
coining of them, (which being a facile work, grows on us
every day) we shall not ere long be able to look through them,
so as to discover the things intended, or rightly to understand
one another. For as one said of lies, so it may be said of ar- W
bitrary distinctions, they must be continually new thatched #•
over, or it will rain through. But the best way is to cast off"
all these coverings, and we shall then quickly see, that the real
difference about the justification of a sinner before God, is the
same and no other, as it was in the days of the Apostle Paul,
between him and the Jews. And all those things which men
are pleased now to plead for, with respect to a causality in our
justification before God, under the names of preparations, con-
ditions, dispositions, merit with respect to a first or second jus-
tification, are as effectually excluded by the Apostle, as if he
had expressly named them every one. For in them all, there
328
FAITH ALONE.
is a management according to our conceptions, and the terms
of the learning pasvsing in the present age, of the plea for our
own personal righteousness which the Jews maintained against
the Apostle. And the true understanding of what he intends
by the law, the works and righteousness thereof, would be
sufficient to determine this controversy, but that men are grown
very skilful in the art of endless wrangling.
CHAPTER XV.
FAITH ALONE.
The truth which we plead has two parts. (1) That the right-
eousness of God imputed to us, to the justification of life, is the
righteousness of Christ, by whose obedience we are made
righteous. (2) That it is faith alone, which on our part is re-
quired to interest us in that righteousness, or whereby we
comply with God's grant and communication of it, or receive
it to our use and benefit. For although this faith is in itself
the radical principle of all obedience, and whatever is not so,
which cannot, which does not on all occasions, evidence, prove,
show or manifest itself by works, is not of the same kind with
it, yet as we are justified by it, its act and duty is such, or of
that nature, that no other grace, duty or work can be associated
with it, or be of any consideration. And both these are evi-
dently confirmed in that description which is given us m the
Scripture, of the nature of faith and believing to the justifica-
'jf tion of life.
^ I know that many expressions used in the declaration of the
nature and work of faith herein, are metaphorical, at least are
generally esteemed so to be. But they are such as the Holy
Ghost in his infinite wisdom thought meet to make use of, for
the instruction and edification of the church. And I cannot
but say, that those who understand not how effectually the
light of knowledge is communicated by them to the minds of
them that believe, and a sense of the things intended, to their
spiritual experience, seem not to have taken a due considera-
tion of them. Nor, whatever skill we pretend to, do we know
always what expressions of spiritual things are metaphorical.
FAITH ALONE. 329
Those oftentimes may seem so to be, which are most proper.
However it is most safe for us to adhere to the expressions of
the Holy Spirit, and not to embrace such senses of things as
are inconsistent with them, and opposite to them. Wherefore,
1. That faith whereby we are justified, is most frequently in
the New Testament expressed by receiving. This notion of
faith has been before spoken to, in our general inquiry into
the use of it in our justification. It shall not therefore be here
much again insisted on. Two things we may observe con-
cerning it. (1) That it is so expressed with respect to the
whole object of faith, or to all that any way concurs to our
justification. For we are said to receive Christ himself. "To
as many as received him, he gave power to become the sons
of God," John i. 12. " As ye have received Christ Jesus
the Lord," Col. ii. 6. In opposition hereto unbelief is express-
ed by " not receiving him," John i. 11; iii. 11; xii.4S; xiv. 17.
And it is a receiving of Christ, as he is " the Lord our right-
eousness," as " of God he is made righteousness" to us. And
as no grace, no duty can have any co-operation with faith
herein, this reception of Christ not belonging to their nature,
norcomprised in their exercise; so it excludes any other right-
eousness from our justification but that of Christ alone. For
we are justified by faith; faith alone receives Christ, and what
it receives is the cause of our justification, whereon we become
" the sons of God." So we "receive the atonement," made
by the blood of Christ, Rom. v. 11. For "God has set him
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." And
this receiving of the atonement, includes the soul's approbation
of the way of salvation by the blood of Christ, and the appro-
priation of the atonement made thereby to our own souls. For
thereby also we receive the forgiveness of sins; "that they
may receive the forgiveness of sin, tln'ough the faith that is in
me," Acts xxvi. 18. In receiving Christ we receive the atone-
ment, and in the atonement we receive the forgiveness of sins.
But moreover, the grace of God, and righteousness itself, as
the efficient and material cause of our justification are received
also; even the " abundance of grace, and the gift of righteous-
ness," Rom. V. 17. So that faith with the respect to all the
causes of justification is expressed by receiving. For it also
receives the promise, the instrumental cause on the part of God
thereof. Acts ii. 41. Heb. ix. 15. (2) That the nature of faith
and its acting with respect to all the causes of justification con-
sisting in receiving, that which is the object of it must be
28*
330 FAITH ALONE.
offered, tendered, and given to us, as that which is not our
own, but is made our own by that giving and receiving. This
is evident in the general nature of receiving. And herein, as
was observed, as no other grace or duty can concur with it, so
the righteousness whereby we are justified can be none of our
own, antecedent to this reception, nor at any time inherent in
us. Hence we argue, that if the work of faith in our justifica-
tion be receiving of what is freely granted, given, communi-
cated and imputed to us, that is, of Christ, of the atonement,
of the gift of righteousness, of the forgiveness of sins, then have
our other graces, our obedience, duties, works, no influence
upon our justification, nor are any causes or conditions thereof.
For they are neither that which receives, nor that which is re-
ceived, which alone concur thereto.
2. Faith is expressed by looking. " Look unto me and be
saved," Isa, xlv. 22. " A man shaU look to his maker, and his
eyes shall have respect unto the Holy One of Israel," Isa. xvii. 1.
'•'They shall look on me whom they have pierced," Zech. xii.
10. See Psal. cxxiii. 2. The nature liereof is expressed, John
iii. 14, 15. " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever be-
lieveth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life." For
so was he to be lifted up on the cross in his death, John viii.
28; xii. 32. The story is recorded Numb. xxi. 8, 9. I sup-
pose none doubt but that the stinging of the people by fiery
serpents, and the death that ensued thereon, were types of the
guilt of' sin, and the sentence of the fiery law thereon. For
these things happened to them in types, 1 Cor. x. 11. When
any was so stung or bitten, if he betook himself to any other
remedies, he died and perished. Only they that looked to the
brazen serpent that was lifted up, were healed and lived. For
this was the" ordinance of God, this way of heahng alone had
he appointed. And their healing was a type of the pardon of
sin with everlasting life. So by their looking, is the nature of
faith expressed, as our Saviour plainly expounds it in this place.
" So must the Son of man be lifted up, that he that believeth un
him," that is as the Israelites looked to the serpent in the wil-
derness. And although this expression of the great mystery of
the gospel by Christ himself, has been by some derided, or as
they call it exposed, yet is it really as instructive of the nature of
faith, justification and salvation by Christ, as any passage in the
Scripture. Now if faith, whereby we are justified, and in that
exercise of it wherein we are so, be a looking to Christ, under
FAITH ALONE. 331
a sense of the guilt of sin and our lost condition thereby, for
all, for our only help and relief, for deliverance, righteousness,
and life, then is it therein exclusive of all other graces and duties
whatever; for by them we neither look, nor are they the things
which we look after. But so is the nature and exercise of faith
expressed by the Holy Ghost. And they who believe, understand
his mind. For whatever may be pretended of metaphor in the
expression, faith is that act of the soul whereby they who are
hopeless, helpless, and lost in themselves, do in a v/ay of ex-
pectancy and trust seek for all help and relief in Christ alone;
or there is not truth in it. And this also sufficiently evinces the
nature of our justification by Christ.
3. It is in like manner frequently expressed by coming to
Christ. " Come unto me all ye that labour," Matt. xi. 28. See
John vi. 35. 37. 45. 65; vii. 37. To come to Christ for life and
salvation, is to believe on him to the justification of life. But
no other grace or duty is a coming to Christ, and therefore have
they no place in justification. He who has been convinced of
sin, who has been wearied with the burthen of it, who has
really designed to fly from the wrath to come, and has heard
the voice of Christ in the gospel, inviting him to come to him
for help and relief, will tell you that this coming to Christ con-
sists in a man's going out of himself, in a complete renuncia-
tion of all his own duties and righteousness, and betaking him-
self with all his trust and confidence to Christ alone, and his
righteousness, for pardon of sin, acceptance with God, and a
right to the heavenly inheritance. It may be some will say this
is not believing, but canting; be it so, we refer the judgment of
it to the church of God.
4. It is expressed hy flying for refuge, Heb. vi. 18. "Who
have fled for refuge, to lay hold on the hope set before us,"
Prov. xviii. 10. Hence some have defined faith to hepeifuginm
anitnse, "the flight of the soul" to Christ for deliverance from
sin and misery. And much light is given to the understanding
of the thing intended thereby. For herein it is supposed, that
he who believes is antecedently thereto convinced of his lost
condition, and that if he abide therein he must perish eternally;
that he has nothing of himself whereby he may be delivered
from it; that he must betake himself to somewhat else for re-
lief; that to this end he considers Christ as set before him and
proposed to him in the promise of the gospel; that he judges
this to be a holy, a safe way for his deliverance and acceptance
with God, as that which has the characters of all divine excel-
332 THE TRUTH PLEADED, FURTHER CONFIRMED
lencies upon it ; hereon he flieth to it for refuge, that is, with
diligence and speed that he perish not in his present condition;
he betakes himself to it by placing his whole trust and affiance
thereon. And the whole nature of onr justification by Christ
is better declared hereby to the supernatural sense and expe-
rience of believers, than by an hundred philosophical disputa-
tions about it.
5. The terms and notions by which it is expressed under the
Old Testament, are leaning on God, Micah iii. 11, or Christ,
Cant. viii. 5, rolling, or casting ourselves and our burthen on
the Lord, Psal. xxii. S; xxxvn. 5; the wisdom of the Holy
Ghost in such expressions has by some been profanely de-
rided. Resting on God, or in him, 2 Chron. xiv. 11. Psal.
xxxvii. 7. Cleaving to the Lord, Deut. iv. 4. Acts xi. 15; as
also by trusting, hoping, and loaiting in places innumerable.
And it may be observed that those who acted faith as it is thus
expressed, do every where declare themselves to be lost, hope-
less, helpless, desolate, poor, orphans, whereon they place all
their hope and expectation on God alone.
All that I would infer from these things, is, that the faith
whereby we believe to the justification of life, or which is
required of us in a way of diUy that we may be justified, is
such an act of the whole soul whereby convinced sinners
wholly go out of themselves to rest upon God in Christ, for
mercy, pardon, life, righteousness, and salvation, with an ac-
quiescency of heart therein, which is the whole of the truth
pleaded for.
CHAPTER XVL
THE TRUTH PLEADED, FURTHER CONFIRMED BY TESTIMONIES OF SCRIP-
TURE, JER. XXllI. 6.
That which we now proceed to, is the consideration of those
express testimonies of Scripture which are given to the truth
pleaded for, and especially of those places where the doctrine
of the justification of suiners is expressly and designedly
handled. From them it is, that we must learn the truth, and
into them must our faith be resolved, to whose authority all
BY TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE. 333
the arguings and objections of men must give place. By them
is more light conveyed into the understandings of believers,
than by the most subtle disputations. And it is a thing not
without scandal, to see among Protestants whole books written
about justification, wherein scarce one testimony of Scripture
is produced, unless it be to find out evasions from the force of
them. And in particular, whereas the Apostle Paul iias most
fully and expressly (as he had the greatest occasion so to do)
declared and vindicated the doctrine of evangelical justification,
not a few in what they write about it, are so far from declar-
ing their thoughts and faith concerning it, out of his writings,
that they begin to reflect upon them as obscure, and such as
give occasion to dangerous mistakes ; and unless, as was said,
to answer and except against them upon their own corrupt
principles, seldom or never make mention of them. As though
we were grown wiser than he, or that Spirit whereby he was
inspired, guided, actuated in all that he wrote; but there can be
nothing more alien from the genius of Christianity, than for
us not to endeavour humbly to learn the mystery of the grace
of God herein, in the declaration of it made by him. But " the
foundation of God standeth sure," what course soever men
shall be pleased to take in their profession of religion.
For the testimonies which I shall produce and insist upon,
I desire the reader to observe, (1) That they are but some of
the many that might be pleaded to the same purpose. (2) That
those which have been, or yet shall be alleged on particular
occasions, I shall wholly omit; and such are most of them that
are given to this truth in the Old Testament. (3) That in the
exposition of them, I shall with what diligence I can attend
(1) To the analogy of faith, that is the manifest scope and de-
sign of the revelation of the mind and will of God in the Scrip-
ture. And that this is to exdit the freeuess and riches of his
own grace, the glory and excellency of Christ, and his media-
tion, to discover the woful, lost, forlorn condition of man by
sin, to debase and depress every thing that is in and of our-
selves, as to the attaining life, righteousness and salvation, can-
not be denied by any one who have their senses exercised in
the Scriptures. (2) To the experience of them that believe,
with the condition of them who seek after justification by Jesus
Christ. In other things I hope the best helps and rules of the
interpretation of the Scripture shall not be neglected.
There is weight in this case deservedly laid on the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as promised and given
334 THE TRUTH PLEADED, FURTHER CONFIRMED
to US; namely, "the Lord our righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 6.
As the name Jehovah, being given and ascribed to him, is a
full indication of his divine person ; so the addition of his being
our righteousness, sufficiently declares, that in, and by him
alone, we have righteousness, or are made righteous. So was
he typified by Melchisedec, as first, " the king of righteous-
ness," then "the king of peace," Heb. vii, 2. For by his
righteousness alone have we peace with God. Some of the
Socinians would evade this testimony, by observing, that right-
eousness in the Old Testament is used sometimes for benignity,
kindness and mercy, and so they suppose it may be here. But
the most of them, avoiding the palpable absurdity of this imagi-
nation, refer it to the righteousness of God in deliverance, and
vindication of his people. So Brennius briefly, Ifa vocatur
quia Dominus per manum ejus judicium et justitiain faciei
Israeli. " He is so called, because the Lord, by his hand, shall
execute judgment and justice for Israel." But these are eva-
sions of bold men, who care not, so they may say somewhat,
whether what they say, be agreeable to the analogy of faith,
or the plain words of the Scripture. Bellarmine who was more
wary to give some appearance of truth to his answers, first
gives other reasons why he is called "the Lord our righteous-
ness," and then, whether unawares, or overpowered by the
evidence of truth, grants that sense of the words which contains
the whole of the cause we plead for. Christ, he says, " may be
called the Lord our righteousness, because he is the efficient
cause of our righteousness." As God is said to be " our strength
and salvation." Again, "Christ is said to be our righteous-
ness; as he is our v/isdom, our redemption, and our peace; be-
cause he has redeemed us, and makes us wise and righteous,
and reconciles us to God:" and other reasons of the same na-
ttire are added by others. But not trusting to these expositions
of the words, he adds,* " Christ is said to be our righteousness
because he has made satisfaction for us to the Father; and so
gives and communicates that satisfaction to us, when he justi-
fies us, that it may be said to be our satisfaction, and right-
eousness. And in this sense it would not be absurd if any one
should say, that the righteousness of Christ and his merits are
* Deinde dicitur Christus justitia nostra, quoiiiam satisfecit Patri pro nobis,
et earn satisfactionem ita nobis donat et eommiinicat, cum nos justificat ut nostra
satisfactio et justitia dici possit. Hoc inodo non esset absurdum, si quis diceret
nobis itiijiutari Christi justitiain et nierita, cum nobis donantur et applicanlnr, ac
si nos ipsi Deo satisf'ecissemus. De justificat. lib. ii. cap. 10,
BY TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE. 335
imputed to ns, when they are given and applied to us, as if we
ourselves had satisfied God."
In this sense we say, that Christ is the Lord our rig;hteous-
ness; nor is there any thing of importance in the whole doc-
trine of justification that we own, which is not here granted by
the Cardinal; and that in terms which some among ourselves
scruple and oppose. I shall therefore look a little further into
this testimony which has wrested so eminent a confession of
the truth from so great an adversary. "Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous
Branch, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The
Lord our righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. It is confessed among
Christians that this is an illustrious renovation of the first pro-
mise, concerning the incarnation of the Son of God, and our
salvation by him. This promise was first given when we had
lost our original righteonsnesss, and were considered only as
those who had sinned and come sli^ort of the glory of God. In
this estate, a righteousness was absolutely necessary that we
might be again accepted with God; for without a righteousness,
yea that which is perfect and complete, we never were so, nor
ever can be so. In this estate it is promised that he shall be
our righteousness, or as the Apostle expresses it, " the end of
the law for righteousness to them that believe." That he is so,
there can be no question ; the whole inquiry is, how he is so.
This, say the most sober and modest of our adversaries, is be-
cause he is the efficient cause of our righteousness, that is, of
our personal inherent righteousness. But this righteousness
may be considered either in itself, as it is an effect of God's
grace, and so it is good and holy, although it be not perleci and
complete; or it may be considered as it is ours, inherent in us,
accompanied with the remaining defilements of our nature; in
that respect, as this righteousiiess is ours, the prophet affirms
that (in the sight of God) " we are all as an unclean thing, and
all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags," Isa. Ixiv. 6; that is,
our whole personal, inherent righteousness. And the Lord
Christ cannot from hence be denominated "the Lord our right-
eousness," seeing it is all "as filthy rags." It must therefore
be a righteousness of another sort whence this denomination is
taken, and on the account whereof this name is given him.
Wherefore he is our righteousness, as all our righteousnesses
are in him. So the church which confesses all her own right-
eousnesses to be filthy rags, says, "In the Lord have I righteous-
ness," Isa. xlv. 24, which is expounded of Christ by the Apos-
336 THE TRUTH PLEADED, FURTHER CONFIRMED
tie, Rom. xiv. 11, "only in the Lord are my righteousnesses;"
which two places the Apostle expresses, Phil. iii. 9, "that I
may win Christ and be found in him, not having mine own
righteousness which is of the law (in this case as filthy rags)
but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith." Hence it is added, "in the Lord
shall the seed of Israel be justified," ver. 25, namely, because
he is, in what he is, in what he was, and did, as given to and
for us, " our righteousness," and our righteousness is all in him;
which totally excludes our own personal inherent righteousness
from any interest in our justification, and ascribes it wholly to
the righteousness of Christ. And thus is that emphatical ex-
pression of the Psalmist, "I will go in the strength of the Lord
God;" (for as to holiness and obedience, all our spiritual
strength is from him alone) and " I will make mention of thy
righteousness, of thine only;" Psalm Ixxi. 16, the redoubling
of the affix excludes all confidence and trusting in anything
but the righteousness of God alone. For this the Apostle af-
firms to be the design of God, in making Christ to be righteous-
ness to us, namely, " that no flesh should glory in his presence,
but that he that glorieth, should glory in the Lord," 1 Cor. i.
29 — 31. For it is by faith alone making mention, as to our jus-
tification, of the righteousness of God, of his righteousness only,
that all boasting is excluded, Rom. iii. 27. And, besides, what
shall be further pleaded from particular testimonies, the Scrip-
ture eminently declares how he is the Lord our righteousness,
namely, in that he " makes an end of sin and reconciliation for
iniquity, and brings in everlasting righteousness," Dan. ix. 24.
For by these things is our justification completed; namely, in
satisfaction made for sin, the pardon of it in our reconciliation
to God, and the providing for us an everlasting righteousness.
Therefore is he the Lord our righteousness, and so rightly call-
ed. Wherefore seeing we had lost original righteousness, and
had none of our own remaining, and stood in need of a perfect,
complete righteousness to procure our acceptance with God,
and such a one as might exclude all occasion of boasting of any
thing in ourselves, the Lord Christ being given and made to
us the Lord our righteousness, in whom we have all our right-
eousness, our own, as it is ours, being as filthy rags in the sight
of God, and this by making an end of sin, and reconciliation
for iniquity, and bringing in everlasting righteousness, it is by
his righteousness, by his only, that we are justified in the sight
of God, and do glory. This is the substance of what, in this
BY TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE. 337
case, we plead for; and thus it is delivered in the Scripture, in
a way bringing more light and spiritual sense into the minds
of believers, than those philosophical expressions, and distinc-
tions, which vaunt themselves with a pretence of propriety and
accuracy.
CHAPTER XVII.
TESTIMONIES OUT OF THE EVANGELISTS, CONSIDERED.
The reasons why the doctrine of justification, by the imputa-
tion of the righteousness of Christ is more fully and clearly de-
livered in the following writings of the New Testament, than
it is in those of the Evangelists who wrote the history of the
life and death of Christ, have been before declared. But yet
in them also it is sufficiently attested, as to the state of the
church before the death and resurrection of Christ, which is re-
presented in them. Some few of the many testimonies which
may be pleaded out of their writings to that purpose, I shall
consider.
1. The principal design of our blessed Saviour's sermon,
especially that part of it which is recorded Matt. v. is to declare
the true nature of righteousness before God. The Scribes and
Pharisees, from a bondage to whose doctrines he designed to
vindicate the consciences of those that heard him, placed all
our righteousness before God in the works of the law, or men's
own obedience thereto. This they taught the people, and
hereon they justified themselves, as he charges them, Luke
xvi. 15. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men,
but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed
amongst men, is abomination in the sight of God;" as in this
sermon he makes it evident. And all those who were under
their conduct, sought to "establish their own righteousness, as
it were by the works of the law," Rom. ix. 33; x. 3. But yet
were they convinced in their own consciences, that they could
not attain to the law of righteousness; or to that perfection of
obedience Vvhich the law required. Yet would they not forego
their proud, fond imagination of justificaiion by their own
righteousness, but, as the manner of all men is in the same case,
sought out other inventions to relieve them against their con-
29
338 TESTIMONIES OUT OF
victions. P'or to this end, they corrupted the whole law by
their false glosses and interpretations, to bring down and de-
base the sense of it, to what they boasted in themselves to per-
form. So does he in whom our Saviour gives an instance of
the principle and practice of the whole society, by way of a
parable. Lukexviii. 10 — 12. And so the young man atfirmed,
that he had kept the whole law from his youth, namely in
their sense. Matt. xix. 20.
To root this pernicious error out of the church, our Lord
.Jesus Christ in many instances, gives the true, spiritual sense
and intention of the law, manifesting what the righteousness is,
which the law requires, and on what terms a man may be jus-
tified thereby. And among sundry others to the same purpose,
two things he evidently declares. (1) That the law in its pre-
cepts and prohibitions had regard to the regulation of the heart,
with all its first motions and actings. For he asserts, that the
inmost thoughts of the heart, and the first motions of concu-
piscence therein, though not consented to, much less actually
accomplished in the outward deeds of sin, and all the oc-
casions leading to them, are directly forbidden in the law.
This he does in his holy exposition of the seventh command-
ment. (2) He declares the penalty of the law, on the least sin,
to be hell fire, in his assertion of causeless anger to be for-
bidden in the sixth commandment. If men would but try
themselves by these rules and others there given by our Sa-
viour, it would, it may be, take them ofi" from boasting in their
own righteousness and justification thereby. But as it was then,
so is it now also; the most of them who would maintain a jus-
tification by works, attempt to corrupt the sense of the law, and
accommodate it to their own practice. The reader may see an
eminent demonstration hereof, in a late excellent treatise, whose
title is, " The Practical Divinity of the Papists discovered to
be destructive of Christianity and Men's souls." The spirit-
uality of the law, with the severity of its sanction, extending
itself to the least, and most imperceptible motions of sin in the
heart, are not believed, or not aright considered by them who
plead for justification by works in any sense. Wherefore the
principal design of the sermon of our Saviour is, to declare
what is the nature of that obedience which God requires by
the law, and to prepare the minds of his disciples to seek after
another righteousness, which in the cause and means of it, was
not yet plainly to be declared, although many of them being
prepared by the ministry of John hungered and thirsted after it.
THE EVANGELISTS, CONSIDERED. 339
But he sufficiently intimates wherein it consisted, in that he
affirms of himself, that he came to fulfil the law. What he
came for, that he was sent for; for as he was sent, and not for
himself, (he was born to us, given to us,) this was to fulfil the
law, that so the righteousness of it might be fulfilled in us.
And if we ourselves cannot fulfil the law in the proper sense
of its commands, which yet is not to be abolished but estab-
lished, as our Saviour declares; if we cannot avoid the curse
and penalty of it upon its transgression; and if he came to ful-
fil it for us, all which are declared by himself, then is his
righteousness, even that which he wrought for us in fulfilling
the law, the righteousness wherewith we are justified before
God. And whereas here is a twofold righteousness proposed
to us, one in the fulfilling of the law by Christ; the other in
our own perfect obedience to the law, as the sense of it is by
him declared, and other middle righteousness between them
there is none; it is left to the consciences of convinced sinners,
which of these they will adhere and trust to. And their direc-
tion herein, is the principal design we ought to have in the
declaration of this doctrine.
I shall pass by all those places wherein the foundations of
this doctrine are surely laid, because it is not expressly men-
tioned in them. But such they are as in their proper interpre-
tation do necessarily infer it. Of this kind are all those where-
in the Lord Christ is said to die for us, or in our stead, to lay
down his life a ransom for us, or in our stead, and the like;
but I shall pass them by, because I will not digress at all from
the present argument.
But the representation made by our Saviour himself, of the
way and means whereon and whereby men come to be justi-
fied before God, in the parable of the Pharisee and the Pub-
lican, is a guide to all men who have the same design with
them. Luke xviii. 9 — 14. " And he spake this parable unto
certain which trusted in themselves, that they were righteous
and despised others. Two men went up to the temple to pray,
the one a Pharisee, and the other a Publican. The Pharisee
stood and prayed thus with himself; God, I thank thee, that I
am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
even as this Publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes
of all that I possess. And the Publican standing afar off, would
not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon
his breast, saying, God be merciful unto me a sinner. I tell
you, that this man went down unto his house justified, rather
340 TESTIMONIES OUT OP
than the other. For every one that exalteth himself, shall
be abased; and every one that humbleth himself, shall be ex-
alted."
That the design of our Saviour herein, was to represent the
way of our justification before God, is evident. (1) From the
description given of the persons whom he reflected on, ver. 9.
They were such as "trusted in themselves, that they were
righteous;" or, that they had a personal righteousness of their
own before God. (2) From the general rule wherewith he
confirms the judgment he had given concerning the persons de-
scribed. "Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, and
he that abaseth himself shall be exalted." As this is applied
to the Pharisee, and the prayer that is ascribed to him, it de-
clares plainly, that every plea of our own works, as to our jus-
tification before God, under any consideration, is a self exalta-
tion which God despises; and as applied to the Publican, that
a sense of sin is the only preparation on our part for acceptance
with him on believing.
Wherefore both the persons are represented, as seeking to be
justified, for so our Saviour expresses the issue of their address
to God for that purpose; the one was justified, the other was
not.
The plea of the Pharisee to this end consists of two parts. ( 1 )
That he had fulfilled the condition whereon he might be justi-
fied. He makes no mention of any merit, either of congruity,
or condignity. Only whereas there were two parts of God's
covenant then with the church, the one with respect to the
moral, the other with respect to the ceremonial law, he pleads
the observation of the condition of it in both parts, which he
shows in instances of both kinds; only he adds the way that
he took to further him in this obedience, somewliat beyond
what was enjoined, namely, that he fasted twice in the week.
For when men begin to seek for rigliieousness,and justification
by works, they quickly think their best reserve lies in doing
something extraordinary more than other men, and more in-
deed than is required of them. This brought forth all the Phari-
saical austerities in the papacy. Nor can it be said, tiiat all this
signified nothing, because he was a hypocrite and a boaster;
for it will be replied, that it should seem all are so who seek
for justification by works. For our Saviour only represents one
that does so; neither are these things laid in bar against his
justification, but only that he exalted himself in trusting to his
own righteousness. (2) In an ascription of all that he did to
THE EVANGELISTS, CONSIDERED. 34-1
God. " God, I thank thee." Ahhongh he did all this, yet he
owned the aid and assistance of God by his grace in it all. He
esteemed himself much to differ from other men, but ascribed
it not to himself, tliat so he did. All the righteousness and
holiness which he laid claim to, he ascribed to the benignity
and goodness of God. Wherefore he neither pleaded any merit
in his works, nor any works performed in his own strength,
without the aid of grace. All that he pretends is, that by the
grace of God he had fulfilled the condition of the covenant, and
thereon expected to be justified. And what ever words men
shall be pleased to make use of in their vocal prayers, God in-
terprets their minds, according to what they trust in, as to their
justification before him. And if some men will be true to their
own principles, this is the prayer which, tnutalis mutandis,
they ought to make. . •
If it be said, that it is charged on this Pharisee, that he trust-
ed in himself, and despised others, for which he was rejected, I
answer, (1) This charge respects not the mind of the person,
but the genius and tendency of the opinion. The persuasion
of justification by works, includes in it a contempt of other
men. For " if Abraham had been justified by works, lie should
have had whereof to glory." (2) Those whom he despised,
were such as placed their whole trust in grace and mercy; as
this Publican. It were to be wished, that all others of the same
mind did not so also.
The issue is with this person, that he was not justified; nei-
ther shall any one ever be so on the account of his own per-
sonal righteousness. For our Saviour has told us, '•' that when
we have done all," that is, when we have the testimony of our
consciences to the integrity of our obedience, instead of plead-
ing it to our justification, we should say, that is, really judge
and profess, that we are " unprofitable servants," Luke xvii. 10.
As the Apostle speaks, " I know nothing by myself, yet am I
not thereby justified," 1 Cor. iv, 4. And he that is "an un-
profitable servant," and has nothing to trust to but his service,
will be cast out of the presence of God, Matt. xxv. 30. Where-
fore on the best of our obedience to confess ourselves "unpro-
fitable servants," is to confess, that after all, in ourselves, we
deserve to be cast out of the presence of God.
In opposition hereto, the state and prayer of the Publican,
under the same design of seeking justification before God, are
expressed. And the outward acts of his person are mentioned,
as representing, and expressive of the inward frame of his
29*
342 TESTIMONIES OUT OF
mind. " He stood afar off;" he "did not so much as hft up
his eyes;" he " smote upon his breast." All of them represent
a person desponding, yea, despairing in himself This is the
nature, this is the effect of that conviction of sin, which we be-
fore asserted to be antecedently necessary to justification. Dis-
plicency, sorrow, sense of danger, fear of wrath, all are present
with him. In brief he declares himself guilty before God, and
his mouth stopped, as to any apology or excuse. And his
prayer is a sincere application of his soul, to sovereign grace
and mercy, for a deliverance out of the condition, wherein he
was by reason of the guilt of sin. And in the use of the word
lxa<sxoixai, there is respect had to a propitiation. In the whole
of his address there is contained (1) Self-condemnation and
abhorrence. (2) Displicency and sorrow for sin. (3) An uni-
versal renunciation of all works of his own, as any conditions
of his justification. (4) An acknowledgment of his sin, guilt,
and misery. And this is all that on our part is required to jus-
tification before God, excepting that faith whereby we apply
ourselves to him for deliverance.
Some make a weak attempt from hence, to prove that justi-
fication consists wholly in the remission of sin, because on the
prayer of the Publican, for mercy and pardon, he is said to be
justified; but there is no force in this argument. For (1) The
whole nature of justification is not here declared, but only what
is required on our part thereto. The respect of it to the medi-
ation of Christ, was not yet expressly to be brought to light, as
was showed before. (2) Although the Publican makes his ad-
dress to God, under a deep sense of the guilt of sin, yet he
prays not for the bare pardon of sin, but for all that sovereign
mercy or grace, which God provided for sinners. (3) The
term of justification must have the same sense, when applied
to the Pharisee, as when applied to the Publican: and if the
meaning of it, with respect to the Publican, be, that he was
pardoned, then has it the same sense, with respect to the Pha-
risee, he was not pardoned; but he came on no such errand:
he came to be justified, not pardoned; nor does he make the
least mention of his sin, or any sense of it. Wherefore al-
though the pardon of sin be included in justification, yet to
justify, in this place, has respect to a righteousness, whereon a
man is declared just and righteous, wrapped up on the part of
the Publican in the sovereign producing cause, the mercy of
God.
Some few testimonies may be added out of the other Evan-
THE EVANGELISTS, CONSIDERED. 343
gelists, in whom they abound. " As many as received him,
to them gave lie power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name," John i. 12. Faith is express-
ed by the receiving of Christ. For to receive him, and to be-
lieve on his name, are the same. It receives him as set forth
of God to be a propitiation for sin, as the great ordinance of
God, for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners. Where-
fore this notion of faith includes in it, (1) A supposition of the
proposal and tender of Christ to us, for some end and purpose.
(2) That this proposal is made to us in the promise of the gos-
pel. Hence as we are said to receive Christ, we are said to
receive the promise also. (3) The end for which the Lord
Christ is so proposed to us, in the promise of the gospel; and
this is the same with that for which he was so proposed in the
first promise, namely, the recovery and salvation of lost sin-
ners. (4) That in the tender of his person, there is a tender
made of all the fruits of his mediation, as containing the way
and means of our deliverance from sin, and acceptance with
God. (5) There is nothing required on our part to an interest
in the end proposed, but receiving of him, or believing on his
name. (6) Hereby are we entitled to the heavenly inherit-
ance; we have power to become the sons of God, wherein our
adoption is asserted, and justification included. What this re-
ceiving of Christ is, and wherein it consists, has been declared
before, in the consideration of that faith whereby we are justi-
fied. That which hence we argue is, that there is no more
required to the obtaining of a right and title to the heavenly
inheritance but faith alone, in the name of Christ, the receiv-
ing of Christ, as the ordinance of God for justification and sal-
vation. This gives us, I say, our original riglit thereto, and
therein our acceptance with God, which is our justification,
though more be required to the actual acquisition and posses-
sion of it. It is said indeed, that other graces and works are
not exclnded, though faith alone be expressed. But every
thing which is not a receiving of Christ, is excluded. It is, I
say, virtually excluded, because it is not of the nature of that
which is required. When we speak of that whereby we see,
we exclude no other member from being a part of the body;
but we exclude all but the eye from the act of seeing. And if
faith be required, as it is a receiving of Christ, every grace and
duty which is not so, is excluded as to the end of justification.
John iii. 14 — 18. " And as Moses lifted np the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that
344 TESTIMONIES OUT OF THE EVANGELISTS, CONSIDERED.
whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have eter-
nal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not
perish, but have everlasting life. God sent not his Son into
the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through
him, might be saved. He that believeth on him, is not con-
demned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, be-
cause he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God."
I shall observe only a few things from these words, which
in themselves convey a better light of understanding in this
mystery to the minds of believers, than many long discourses
of some learned men. (1) It is of the justification of men, and
their right to eternal life thereon, that our Saviour discourses.
This is plain in ver. 18. " He that believeth is not condemned,
but he that believeth not, is condemned already." (2) The
means of attaining this condition or state on our part, is be-
lieving only, as it is three times positively asserted, without
any addition. (3) The nature of this faith is declared, (1) By
its object, that is, Christ himself the Son of God; " whosoever
believeth on him," which is frequently repeated. (2) The es-
pecial consideration, wherein he is the object of faith to the
justification of life; and that is as he is the ordinance of God,
given, sent, and proposed from the love and grace of the Fa-
ther. "God so loved the world, that he gave;" "God sent
his Son." (3) The especial act yet included in the type,
whereby the design of God, in him, is illustrated. For this
was the looking to the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilder-
ness, by them who were stung with fiery serpents. Hereto
our faith in Christ to justification answers, and includes a trust
in him alone for deliverance and rehef This is the way, these
are the only causes and means of the justification of condemn-
ed sinners, and are the substance of all that we plead for.
It will be said that all this proves not the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ to us, which is the thing principally in-
quired after: but if notliing be required on our part to justifi-
cation, but faith acted on Christ, as the ordinance of God for
our recovery and salvation, it is the whole of what we plead
for. A justification by the remission of sins alone, without a
righteousness giving acceptance with God, and a right to the
heavenly inheritance, is alien to the Scripture and the conmion
notion of justification amongst men. And what this righteous-
ness must be, upon a supposition that faith only, on our part, is
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION, ETC. 345
required to a participation of it, is sufficiently declared in the
words wherein Christ himself is so often asserted, as the object
of our faith to that purpose.
Not to add more particular testimonies, which are multiplied
to the same purpose, in this Evangelist, the sum of the doc-
trine declared by him, is, that the Lord Jesus Christ was the
Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world, that is,
by the sacrifice of himself, wherein he answered and fulfilled
all the typical sacrifices of the law: that to this end he sancti-
fied himself, that those, who believe, might be sanctified, or
perfected for ever by his own offering of himself: that in the
gospel he is proposed, as lifted up and crucified for us, as bear-
ing all our sins on his body on the tree; that by faith in him,
we have adoption, justification, freedom from judgment and
condemnation, with a right and title to eternal life; that those
who believe not are condemned already, because they believe
not on the Son of God; and as he elsewhere expresses it, make
God a liar, in that they believe not his testimony, namely, that
he has given unto us eternal life; and that this life is in his Son.
Nor does he any where make mention of any other means,
cause, or condition of justification on our part, but faith only,
though he abounds in precepts to believers for love, and keep-
ing the commands of Christ. And this faith is the receiving of
Christ, in the sense newly declared. And this is the substance
of the Christian faith in this matter; which ofitimes we rather
obscure than illnstrate, by debating the consideration of any
thing in our justification, but the grace and love of God, the
person and mediation of Christ, with faith in them.
CHAPTER XVIIL
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED IN THE EPISTLES OF
PAUL, ESPECIALLY THAT TO THE ROMANS, CHAP. III.
That the way and manner of our justification before God,
with all the causes and means of it, are designedly declared by
the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. iii. 4, 5, as also
vindicated from objections, so as to render his discourse thereon
the proper seat of this doctrine, and whence it is principally to
346 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
be learned, cannot modestly be denied. The late exceptions
of some, that this doctrine of jnstification by faith, withont
works, is fonnd only in the writings of Panl, and that his writ-
ings are obscure and intricate, are both false and scandalous to
Christianity, so that in this place we shall not afford them the
least consideration. He wrote " as he was moved by the Holy
Ghost." And as all the matter delivered by him was sacred
truth, which immediately requires our faith and obedience, so
the way and manner wherein he declared it, was such as the
Holy Ghost judged most expedient for the edification of the
church. And as he said hiiuself with confidence, that if the
gospel which he preached, and as it was preached by him,
though accounted by them foolishness, was hid, so that they
could not understand, norcomprehend the mystery of it, it was
"hid to them that are lost;" so we may say, that if what he
delivers in particular concerning our justification before God,
seems obscure, difficult, or perplexed to ns, it is from our preju-
dices, corrupt aftections, or weakness of understanding at best,
not able to comprehend the glory of this mystery of the grace
of God in Christ, and not from any defect in his way, and man-
ner of the revelation of it. Rejecting therefore all such per-
verse insinuations, in a due sense of our own weakness, and
acknowledgment that at best " we know but in part," we shall
humbly inquire into the blessed revelation of this great mystery
of the justification of a sinner before God, as by him declared
in those chapters of his glorious Epistle to the Romans; and I
shall do it with all possible brevity, so as not on this occasion
to repeat what has been already spoken, or to anticipate what
may be spoken in a more convenient place.
The first thing he does, is to prove all men to be under sin,
and to be guilty before God. This he gives as the conclusion
of his preceding discourse, from chap. i. 18, or what he had
evidently evinced thereby, chap. iii. 19,23. Hereon an inquiry
arises, how any of them come to be justified before God. And
whereas justification is a sentence upon the consideration of a
righteousness, his grand inquiry is, what that righteousness is,
on the consideration whereof a man may be so justified. And
concerning this, he affirms expressly that it is not the righteous-
ness of the law, nor of the works of it, whereby what he in-
tends has been in part before declared, and will be further mani-
fested in the process of our discourse. Wherefore in general he
declares, that the righteousness whereby we are justified, is the
"righteousness of God," in opposition to any righteousness of
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 347
our own, chap. i. 17: iii. 21, 22. And he describes this right-
eousness of God by three properties. (1) That it is ;t«?'s "o^s,
" without the law," ver. 21, separated in all its concerns from
the law; not attainable by it, nor any works of it; which they
have no influence upon. It is neither our obedience to the law,
nor attainable thereby. Nor can any expression more separate
and exclude the works of obedience to the law, from any con-
cernment in it, than this doth. Wherefore, what ever is, or can
be performed by ourselves in obedience to the law, is rejected
from any interest in this righteousness of God, or the procure-
ment of it to be made ours. (2) That yet it is witnessed unto
by the law, ver. 21. " The law and the prophets." The Apos-
tle by this distinction of the books of the Old Testament, into
the law and the prophets, manifests that by the law he under-
stands the books of Moses; and in them, testimony is given
to this righteousness of God, four ways.
(1) By a declaration of the causes of the necessity of it to
our justification. This is done in the accoimt given of our
apostasy from God, of the loss of his image, and the state of
sin that ensued thereon. For hereby an end was put to all
possibility and hope of acceptance with God, by our own per-
sonal righteousness. By the entrance of sin, our own right-
eousness went out of the world; so that there must be another
righteousness prepared and approved of God, and called the
righteousness of God, in opposition to our own, or all relation
of love and favour between God and man, must cease for ever.
(2) In the way of recovery from this state, generally de-
clared in the first promise of the blessed seed, by whom this
righteousness of God was to be wrought and introduced; for
he alone was to "make an end of sin, and to bring in ever-
lasting righteousness," Dan. ix. 24, that righteousness of God,
that should be the means of the justification of the church in
all ages, and under all dispensations.
(3) By stopping up tlie way to any other righteousness
through the threatenings of the law, and that curse which
every transgression of ii, was attended with. Hereby it was
plainly and lully declared, that there must be such a righteous-
ness provided for our justification before men, as would answer
and remove that curse.
(4) In the prefiguration and representation of that only way
and means, whereby this righteousness of God was to be
wrought. This it did in all its sacrifices, especially in the
great anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation, wherein
348 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
all the sins of the church were laid on the head of the sacrifice,
and so carried away. (3) He describes it by the only way of
our participation of it, the only means on our part of the com-
munication of it to us. And this is by faith alone. " The
righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Christ Jesus,
unto all, and upon all them that believe; for there is no differ-
ence," ver. 22. Faith in Christ Jesus is so the only way and
means, whereby this righteousness of God comes upon us, or
is communicated to us, that it is so to all that have this faith,
and only to them, and that without difference on the consider-
ation of any thing else besides. And although faith taken ab-
solutely, may be used in various senses, yet as thus specified
and limited, the faith of Christ Jesus, or as he calls it, " the
faith that is in me," Acts, xxvi. 18, can intend nothing but the
reception of him, and trust in him, as the ordinance of God for
righteousness and salvation.
This description of the righteousness of God revealed in the
gospel, which the Apostle asserts as the only means and cause
of our justification before God, with the only way of its parti-
cipation and communication to us by the faith of Christ Jesus,
fully confirms the truth we plead for. For if the righteousness
wherewith we must be justified before God be not our own,
but the righteousness of God, as these things are directly op-
posed, Phil. iii. 9, and the only way whereby it comes upon
us, or we are made partakers of it, is by the faith of Jesus
Christ, then our own personal inherent righteousness or obedi-
ence, has no interest in our justification before God; which
argument is unanswerable, nor is the force of it to be waved
by any distinctions whatever, if we keep our hearts to a due
reverence for the authority of God in his word.
Having fully proved, that no men living have any righteous-
ness of their own, whereby they may be justified, but are all
shut up under the guilt of sin; and having declared, that there
is a righteousness of God now fully revealed in the gospel,
whereby alone we may be so; leaving all men in themselves
to their own lot, in as much as " all have sinned and come
short of the glory of God," he proceeds to declare the nature
of our justification before God, in all the causes of it. Ver.
24 — 26. " Being justified freely by his grace through the re-
demption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins, that are past, through
the forbearance of God. To declare, I say at this time, his
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 349
righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of them
that beUeve in Jesus."
Here it is, that we may, and ought, if any where, to expect
the interest of our personal obedience under some qualification
or other, in our justification, to be declared. For if it should
be supposed (which yet it cannot with any pretence of reason)
that in the foregoing discourse, the Apostle had excluded only
the works of the law, as absolutely perfect, or as wrought in
our own strength without the aid of grace, or as meritorious;
yet having generally excluded all works from our justification,
ver. 20, without distinction or limitation, it might well be ex-
pected, and ought to have been so, that upon the full declara-
tion which he gives us of the nature and way of our justifica-
tion in all the causes of it, he should have assigned the place,
and consideration which our own personal righteousness had
in our justification before God; the first or second, or continu-
ation of it, somewhat or other; or at least, made some mention
of it, under the qualification of gracious, sincere, or evangeli-
cal, that it might not seem to be absolutely excluded. It is
plain the Apostle thought of no such thing, nor was at all soli-
citous about any reflection that might be made on his doctrine,
as though it overthrew the necessity of our own obedience.
Take in the consideration of the Apostle's design, with the cir-
cumstances of the context, and the argument from his utter
silence about our own personal righteousness in our justifica-
tion before God, is unanswerable. But this is not all; we shall
find in our progress, that it is expressly and directly excluded
by him.
All unprejudiced persons must needs think that no words
could be used more express and emphatical, to secure the whole
of our justification to the free grace of God, through the blood,
or mediation of Christ, wherein it is faith alone that gives us
an interest, than these used here by the Apostle. And for my
part, I shall only say, that I know not how to express myself
in this matter, in words and terms more express or significant
of the conception of my mind. And if we could all but sub-
scribe the answer here given by the Apostle; how, by what
means, on what grounds, or by what causes, are we justified
before God, namely, that we are "justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," &c.
there might be an end of this controversy.
But the principal passages of this testimony must be distinct-
30
350 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
]y considered. (1) The principal efficient cause is first expressed
with a pecuhar emphasis; " being justified freely by his grace."
God is the principal efficient cause of our justification, and his
grace is the only moving cause thereof. 1 shall not stay upon
the exception of those of the Roman church, namely, that by
fy; xa^i-tt, dutou whicli their translation renders per gratiarn Dei,
the internal inherent grace of God, which they make the for-
mal cause of justification, is intended. For they have nothing
to prove it, but that which overthrows it; namely, that it is
added to Scopsar "freely," which v/ere needless, if it signify the
free grace or favour of God. For both these expressions gra-
tis per gratiam, " freely by grace," are put together to give
the greater emphasis to this assertion, wherein the whole of
our justification is vindicated to the free grace of God; so far
as they are distinguishable, the one denotes the principle from
whence our justification proceeds, namely, grace; and the
other, the manner of its operation, it works freely. Besides,
the " grace of God" in this subject, every where constantly sig-
nifies his goodness, love, and favour, as has been undeniably
proved by many. See Rom. v. 15. Eph. ii. 4, 8, 9. 2 Tim. i. 9.
Tit. iii. 4, 5.
Being justified ^co^sar, so the LXX. render the Hebrew par-
ticle ojn '< withoiU price," without merit, without cause; and
sometimes it is used for " without end," that is, what is done
in vain; as Sw^sav is used by tlie Apostle, Gal. ii. 21, without
price or reward, Gen. xxix. 15. Exod. xxi. 22. 2 Kings xxiv.
25; without cause or merit or any means of procurement, 1
Sam. xix. 5. 2 Sam. xxiv, 24. Psal. Ixix. 4; cii. In this sense
it is rendered by Sco^fav, John xv. 25. The design of the word
is to exclude all consideration of any thing in us that should be
the cause or condition of our justification. Xa^ii.fc/vour, abso-
lutely considered, may have respect to somewhat in him to-
wards whom it is showed; so it is said that "Joseph found
grace," or favour xH''^^ iw tlie eyes of Potiphar, Gen. xxix. 4;
but he foinid it not Su^iav, "without any consideration" or
cause; for he saw that the I^ord was with him and made all
that he did to prosper in his hand, ver. 3. But no words can be
found out to free our justification before God from all respect
to any thing in ourselves, (but only what is added expressly
as the means of its participation on our part, "through faith in
his blood,") more emphatical than these here used by the
Apostle; Soj^iav Tiri avtov xH'-''^''} "freely by his grace." And to
those who do not admit this as exclusive of all works or obedi-
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 351
ence of our own, of all conditions, preparations and merit, I shall
despair of ever expressing my conceptions about it intelligibly.
Having asserted this righteousness of God as the cause and
means of our justification before him, in opposition to all right-
eousness of our own; and declared the cause of the communi-
cation of it to us on the part of God, to be mere free sovereign
grace, the means on our part whereby according to the ordina-
tion of God, we receive or are really made partakers of that
righteousness of God whereon we are justified, is by faith; 6ta
ftTl^ rftarfcoj iv av-tov ac/uaft. ; that is by faith alone. Nothing else
is proposed, nothing else required to this end. It is replied,
that there is no intimation that it is by faith alone, or that faith is
asserted to be the means of our justification exclusively to other
graces or works. But there is such an exclusion directly in-
cluded in the description given of that faith whereby we are
justified with respect to its especial object " by faith in his
blood." For faith respecting the blood of Christ, as that
whereby propitiation was made for sin, in which respect alone,
the Apostle affirms that we are justified through faith, admits
of no association with any other graces or duties. Neither is
it any part of their nature to fix on the blood of Christ, for jus-
tification before God : wherefore they are all here directly ex-
cluded. And those who think otherwise, may try how they
can introduce them into this context without an evident cor-
rupting of it, and perverting of its sense. Neither will the
other evasion yield our adversaries the least relief: namely,
that by faith not the single grace of faith is intended, but the
whole obedience required in the new covenant, faith and works
together. For as all works whatever, as our works, are ex-
cluded in the declaration of the causes of our justification on
the part of God,, " freely by his grace," by virtue of that great
rule, Rom. xi. G, "if it be of grace, then no more of works,
otherwise grace is no more grace;" so the determination of the
object of faith in its act or duty whereon we are justified,
namely the blood of Christ, is absolutely exclusive of all works
from an interest in that duty. For whatever looks to the blood
of Christ, for justification, is faith and nothing else. And as
for the calling of it a single act or duty, I refer the reader to
our preceding discourse about the nature of justifying faith.
Three things the Apostle infers from the declaration he had
made of the nature and causes of our justification before God, all
of them further illustrating the meaning and sense of his words.
1. That boasting is excluded; Rom. xi. 27. Apparent it is from
352
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
hence, and from what he affirms concerning Abraham, chap,
iv. 2, that a great part at least, of the controversy he had
about justification, was whether it admitted of any xavxyja^? or
xavxyifia boasting, in those that were justified. And it is known
that the Jews placed all their hopes in those things whereof
they thought they could boast, namely their privileges and
their righteousness. But from the declaration made of the na-
ture and causes of justification, the Apostle infers that all boast-
ing whatever is utterly shut out of doors; itixXnoBri. Boasting,
in our language is the name of a vice; and is never used in a
good sense. But xavxn^i'i and xavx-ni^^ the words used by the
Apostle, are of an indifferent signification, and as they are ap-
plied may denote a virtue as well as a vice. So they do, Heb, iii. 6.
But always, and in all places, they respect something that is
peculiar in or to them, to whom they are ascribed. Wherever
any thing is ascribed to one and not to another, with respect to
any good end, there is fundamentum x<xvxri^i^<.-, a foundation
for boasting. All this says the Apostle in the matter of our
justification is utterly excluded. But wherever respect is had
to any condition or qualification in one more than another,
especially if it be of works, it gives a ground of boasting, as
he affirms, chap, iv, 2. And it appears from comparing that
verse with this, that wherever there is any influence of our
own works upon our justification, there is a ground of boast-
ing; but in evangelical justification, no such boasting in any
kind can be admitted. Wherefore there is no place for works
in our justification before God; for if there were, it is impossi-
ble but that a xavxrjfj^a in one kind or other before God or man
must be admitted.
2. He infers a general conclusion, "that a man is justified
by faith without the works of the law," verse 28. What is
meant by the " law," and what by the " works of the law" in
this discourse of the Apostle about our justification, has been
before declared. And if we are justified freely through faith
in the blood of Christ, that faith which has the propitiation of
Christ for its especial object, or as it has so, can take no other
grace nor duty into partnership with itself therein: and being
so justified that all such boasting is excluded as necessarily re-
sults from any differencing graces or works in ourselves, where-
in all the works of the law are excluded, it is certain that it is
by faith alone in Christ that we are justified. All works are
not only excluded, but the way to their return is so shut up by
the method of the Apostle'sdiscourse, that all the reinforcements
IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUL, ETC. 353
which the wit of man can give to them, will never introduce
them into our justification before God.
3. He asserts from hence, that " we do not mai^e void the
law through grace," but establish it, verse 31. How this is
done, and how alone it can be done, has been before declared.
This is the substance of the resolution the Apostle gives to
that great inquiry, how a guilty convinced sinner may come to
be justified in the sight of God. The sovereign grace of God,
the mediation of Christ, and faith in the blood of Christ, are all
that he requires thereto. And whatever notions men may
have about justification in other respects, it will not be safe to
venture on any other resolution of this case and inquiry; nor
are we wiser than the Holy Ghost.
Romans, Chap. iv. — In the beginning of the fourth chapter
he confirms what he had before doctrinally declared, by a sin-
gle instance; and this was of the justification of Abraham, the
father of the faithful, whose justification is proposed as the pat-
tern of ours, as he expressly declares, verses 22 — 24. And some
few things I shall observe on tliis instance in our passage to
the fifth verse; where I shall fix our discourse.
1. He denies that Abraham was justified by works, verse 2.
And (1) These works were not those of the Jewish law, which
alone some pretend to be excluded from our justification in
this place. For they were the works he performed some hun-
dreds of years before the giving of the law at Sinai: wherefore
they are the works of his moral obedience to God that are in-
tended. (2) Those works must be understood which Abraham
had then, when he is said to be justified, in the testimony pro-
duced to that purpose; but the works that Abraham then had,
were works of righteousness, performed in faith and love to
God, works of new obedience under the conduct and aids of
the Spirit of God; works required in the covenant of grace.
These are the works excluded from the justification of Abra-
ham. And these things are plain, exjn'ess, and evident, not to
be eluded by any disiiiictions or evasions. All Abraham's
evangelical works are expressly excluded from his justification
before God.
2. He proves by the testimony of Scripture, declaring the
nature and grounds of the justification of Abraham, that he
was justified no other way, but that which he had before de-
clared, namely by grace tiirougli faith in Christ Jesus, verse 3.
"Abraham believed God (in tlie promise of Christ and his me-
diation) and it was counted unto him for righteousness," ver. 3.
30*
354 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
He was justified by faith in the way before described (for
other justification by faith there is none) in opposition to all
his own works, and personal righteousness thereby.
3. From the same testimony he declares how he came to be
partaker of that righteousness whereon he was justified before
God, which was by imputation; it was "counted" or imputed
"■ to him for righteousness." The nature of the imputation has
been before declared.
4. The especial nature of this imputation, namely that it is
of grace without respect to works, he asserts and proves, verse
4, from what is contrary thereto. " Now to him that worketh
is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." Where
works are of any consideration, there is no room for that kind
of imputation whereby Abraham was justified, for it was a
gracious imputation, and that is not of what is our own ante-
cedently thereto, but what is made our own by that imputation.
For what is our own cannot be imputed to us in a way of
grace, but only reckoned ours in a way of debt. 'J'hat which
is our own with all the effects of it, is due to us. And therefore
they who plead that faith itself is imputed to us, to give some
countenance to an imputation of grace, say it is imputed not
for what it is, for then it would be reckoned of debt, but for
what it is not. So Socinus, Cum fides imputatnr nobis pro
justitia, ideo imputatur quia nee ipsa fides justitia est, nee
vere in seeamcontinet, De Servat. part. iv. cap. 2; which kind
of imputation being indeed only a false imgination, we have
before disproved. But all works are inconsistent with that
imputation whereby Abraham was justified. It is otherwise
with him that works, so as thereon to be justified, than it was
with him. Yea, say some, all works that are meritorious, that
are performed with an opinion of merit, that make the reward
to be of debt, are excluded, but other works are not. This
distinction is not learned from the Apostle. For according to
him, if this be merit and meritorious, that the reward be reck-
oned of debt, then all works in justification are so. For with-
out distinction or limitation he affirms, that "unto him that
worketh, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt."
He does not exclude some sort of works, or works in some
sense, because they would make the reward ofdebt, but affirms
that all would do so to the exclusion of gracious imputation.
For if the foundation of imputation be in ourselves, imputation
by grace is excluded. In the fifth verse the sum of the Apos-
tle's doctrine, which he had contended for, and what he had
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 355
proved, is expressed. "But to liini that worketh not, but be-
lieveth on him that justifietli the ungodly, his faith is counted
for righteousness." It is granted on all hands, that the close
of the verse " his faith is counted for righteousness," expresses
the justification of the person intended. He is justified, and
the way of it is, " his faith is counted" or imputed. Wherefore
the foregoing words declare the subject of justification, and its
qualification, or the description of the person to be justified,
with all that is required on his part thereto.
And first it is said of him, that he is, 6 nf] spya^ojufj/oj; " who
worketh not." It is not required to his justification that he
should not work, that he should not perform any duties of obe-
dience to God in any kind, which is working. For every per-
son in the world is always obliged to all duties of obedience,
according to the light and knowledge of the will of God, the
means whereof is afforded to him. But the expression is to be
limited by the subject matter treated of. He wlio worketh not,
with respect to justification; though not the design of the per-
son, but the nature of the thing is intended. To say, "he who
worketh not is justified" through believing, is to say that his
works whatever they be, have no influence on his justification,
nor has God in justifying of him any respect to them. Where-
fore he alone who worketh not, is the subject of justification,
the person to be justified; that is, God considers no man's
works, no man's duties of obedience in his justification; seeing
we are justified " freely by his grace." And when God affirms
expressly, that he justifies him "who worketh not,'" and that,
" freely by his grace," I cannot understand what place our
works or duties of obedience, can have in our justification.
For why should we trouble ourselves to discover of what con-
sideration they may be in our justification before God, when
he himself affirms, that they are of none at all? Neither are
the words capable of any evading interpretation. " He that
worketh not," is " he that worketh not," let men say what they
please, and distinguish as long as they will. And it is a boldness
not to be justified, for any to rise up in opposition to such ex-
press divine testimonies, however they may be harnessed with
philosophical notions and arguings, which are but as thorns and
briars, which the word of God will pass through and consume.
But the Apostle further adds in the description of the sub-
ject of justification, that God " justifieth the ungodly." This is
that expression which has stirred up so much wrath amongst
many, and on account whereof, some seem to be much dis-
356
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
pleased with the Apostle himself. If any other person dare but
say that " God jiistifieth the ungodly," he is presently reflected
on, as one that by his doctrine would overthrow the necessity
of godliness, holiness, obedience, or good works. For what
need can tliere be of any of them, if God justifies the "un-
godly?" Howbeit this is a periphrasis of God that he is
o dtxatu^v tov asiiir; " he that justifietli the ungodly." This is his
prerogative and property, as such will he be believed in and
worshipped, which adds weight and emphasis to the expres-
sion. And we must not forego this testimony of the Holy
Ghost, let men be as angry as they please.
But the diflerence is about the meaning of the words. Some
say, " those who formerly were ungodly, not those who con-
tinue ungodly when they are justified." And this is most true.
All that are justified were before ungodly; and all that are
justified are at the same instant made godly. But the ques-
tion is, whether they are godly or ungodly antecedently in any
moment of time to their justification; if they are considered as
godly, and are so indeed, then the Apostle's words are not true,
''that God justifieth the ungodly;" for the contradictory pro-
position is true, " God justifieth none but the godly." For
these propositions, God justifieth the ungodly, and God justi-
fieth none but the godly, are contradictory.
Wherefore, although in and with the justification of a sinner,
he is made godly, for he is endowed with that "faith which
purifieth the heart," and is a vital principle of all obedience,
and the conscience is purged from dead works by the blood of
Christ; yet antecedently to his justification he is ungodly and
considered as ungodly, as one that " worketh not," as one
whose duties and obedience contribute nothing to his justifica-
tion. As he " worketh not," all works are excluded from
being the causa per quam; and as he is "ungodly," from
being the causa sine qua non of his Justification.
The qualification of the subject, or the means on the part
of the person to be justified, and whereby he becomes actually
so, is faith or, believing. " But believeth on him who justifieth
the ungodly." That is, it is taitli alone. For it is the faith of
him who worketh not; and not only so, but its especial object,
God as justifying the ungodly, is exclusive of the concomitan-
cy of any works whatever. This is faith alone, or it is impos-
sible to express faith alone, without the literal use of that word
alone. But faith being asserted, in opposition to all works of
ours, "unto him that worketli not," and its especial nature de-
IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUl, ETC. 357
Glared in its especial object, " God as justifying the ungodly,"
that is, " freely by his grace, through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus," no place is left for any works to make the least
approach towards our justification before God, under the covert
of any distinction whatever. And the nature of justifying faith
is here also determined. It is not a mere assent to divine rev-
elations; it is not such a firm assent to them, as should cause
us to yield obedience to all the precepts of the Scripture,
though these things are included in it; but it is a believing on,
and trusting to him that justifieth the ungodly, through the
mediation of Christ.
Concerning this person, the Apostle affirms that his " faith is
counted for righteousness," that is, he is justified in the way
and manner before declared. But there is a difference about
the sense of these words. Some say, the meaning of them is,
that faith as an act, a grace, a duty, or work of ours, is so im-
puted. We say, that it is faith as it apprehends Christ and
his righteousness, which is properly imputed to us, that is in-
tended. So faith, say we, justifies, or is counted for righteous-
ness relatively, not properly, with respect to its object; and so
we acknowledge a trope in the words. And this is fiercely
opposed, as though we denied the express words of the Scrip-
ture, when yet we do but interpret this expression once only
used, by many others, wherein the same thing is declared.
But those who are for the first sense, all affirm that faith here
is to be taken as including obedience or works, either as the
form and essence of it, or as such necessary concomitants as
have the same influence with it on our justification, or are in
the same manner the condition of it. But as herein they admit
also of a trope in the words which they so fiercely blame in
us, so they give this sense of the whole, " to him that work-
eth not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith and works are counted to him for righteousness;"
which is not only to deny what the Apostle affirms, but to as-
sign to him a plain contradiction.
And I do a little marvel that any unprejudiced person,
should expound the solitary expression in such a sense, as is
contradictory to the design of the Apostle, the words of the
same period, and the whole ensuing context. For that which
the Apostle proposes to confirmation, which contains his whole
design, is, that we are justified by the righteousness which is
of God by faith in the blood of Christ. That this cannot be
faith itself, shall immediately be made evident; and in the
358
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
words of the text, all works are excluded, if any words be suf-
ficient to exclude them. But faith absolutely as a single grace,
act and duty of ours, is a work; much more as it includes obe-
dience in it, it is all works. And in the ensuing context, he
proves that Abraham was not justified by works. But not to
be justified by works, and to be justified by some works, (as
faith itself is a work, and if as such it be imputed to us for
righteousness, we are justified by it as such) are contradictory.
Wherefore I shall oppose some few arguments to this feigned
sense of the Apostle's words.
1. To believe absolutely, as faith is an act and duty of ours,
and works, are not opposed; for faith is a work, an especial
kind of working. But faith as we are justified by it, and
works, or to work, are opposed; "to liim that worketh not,
but believeth." So Gal. ii. 16. Eph. ii. S.
2. It is the righteousness of God that is imputed to us. For
" we are made the righteousness of God in Christ," 2 Gor. v.
21. "The righteousness of God upon them that believe,"
Rom. iii. 21, 22. But faith absolutely considered, is not the
righteousness of God. God imputes to us " righteousness
without works," Rom. iv. 16. But there is no intimation of
a double imputation of two sorts of righteousnesses, of the
righteousness of God, and that which is not so. Now faith
absolutely considered, is not the righteousness of God. For
1. That wliereto the righteousness of God is revealed, where-
by we believe and receive it, is not itself the righteousness of
God. For nothing can be the cause or means of itself: but the
righteousness of God is "revealed unto faith," Rom. i. 16.
And by it is it received, Rom. iii. 22; v. 11.
2. Faith is not the righteousness of God which is by faith : but
the righteousness of God which is imputed to us is " the right-
eousness of God which is by faith," Rom. iii. 22. Phil. iii. 9.
3. That whereby the righteousness of God is to be sought,
obtained, and submitted to, is not that righteousness itself. But
such is faith, Rom. ix. 30, 31; x. 30.
4. The righteousness which is imputed to us, is not our own
antecedently to that imputation. "That I may be found in
him, not having my own righteousness," Phil. iii. 9. But faitli
is a man's own. Show me "thy faith," I will show thee "my
faith," James ii. IS.
5. God imputes righteousness to us, Rom. iv. 6. And that
righteousness which God imputes to us, is the righteousness
whereby we are justified, for it is imputed to us that we may
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 359
be justified. But we are justified by the obedience and blood
of Christ. " By the obedience of one we are made righteous,"
Rom. V. 19. " Much more now being justified by his blood,"
ver. 9. " He hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,"
Heb. ix. 26. "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities." Isa. liii. .11^
But faith is neither the obedience, nor the blood of Christ. ■ '
6. Faith, as we said before, is our own. And that which is
our own may be imputed to us. But the discourse of the Apos-
tle is about that which is not our own antecedently to imputa-
tion, but is made ours thereby, as we have proved; for it is of
" grace." And the imputation to us of what is really our own
antecedently to that imputation, is not of grace in the sense of
the Apostle. For what is so imputed, is imputed for what it
is, and nothing else. For that imputation is but the judgment'
of God concerning the thing imputed, with respect to them
whose it is. So the fact of Phineas was imputed to him for
righteousness. God judged it, and declared it to be a righteous
rewardable act. Wherefore if our faith and obedience be im-
puted to us, that imputation is only the judgment of God that
we are believers and obedient. "Tlie righteousness of the
righteous, (saith the prophet,) shall be upon him, and the wick-
edness of the wicked shall be upon him," Ezek. xviii. 20. As
the wickedness of the wicked is upon him, or is imputed to
him, so the righteousness of the righteous is upon him, or is
imputed to him. And the wickedness of the wicked is on him,
when God judges him wicked as his works are. So is the
righteousness of a man upon him, or imputed to him, when
God judges of his righteousness as it is. Wherefore if faith
absolutely considered, be imputed to us as it contains in itself,
or as it is accompanied with, works of obedience: then it is im-
puted to us, either for a perfect righteousness which it is not,
or for an imperfect righteousness which it is; or the imputation
of it, is the accounting of that to be a perfect righteousness,
which is but imperfect; but none of these can be affirmed.
1. It is not imputed to us for a perfect righteousness, the
righteousness required by the law, for so it is not. Episcopius
confesses in his disputation, Disput. xlv. § 7,8, that " the right-
eousness which is imputed unto us must be absolutissima et
perfectissima, " most absolute and most perfect." And thence
he thus defines the imputation of righteousness to us, namely,
that it is, gratiosa divinse mentis sestirnatio, qua credentem
in Filiuni suum, eo loco reputat ac si perfecte Justus esset,ac
360 THE NATURE OP JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
legi et vohintati ejus per omnia semper paruisset; "a gra-
cious judgment of the divine mind, by which the believer in
Christ is regarded as perfectly righteous, as if he had, at all
times and in all respects, obeyed the law and will of God."
And no man will pretend, that faith is such a most absolute
and most perfect righteousness, that by it the righteousness of
the law should be fulfilled in us, as it is by that righteousness
which is imputed to us.
2. It is not imputed to us for what it is, an imperfect right-
eousness. For, (1) This would be of no advantage to us. For
we cannot be justified before God by an imperfect righteous-
ness, as is evident in the prayer of the Psalmist, Psal. cxliii. 2.
"Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight no
man living, (no servant of thine who has the most perfect, or
highest measure of imperfect righteousness) shall be justified."
(2) The imputation of any thing to us, that was ours antece-
dently to that imputation, for what it is, and no more, is con-
trary to the imputation described by the Apostle, as has been
proved.
3. This imputation pleaded for, cannot be a judging of that
to be a perfect righteousness which is imperfect. For the judg-
ment of God is according to truth. But without judging it to
be such, it cannot be accepted as such. To accept of any thing,
but only for what we judge it to be, is to be deceived.
Lastly, if faith, as a work, be imputed to us, then it must be
as a work wrought in faith. For no other work is accepted
with God. Then must that faith also wherein it is wrought be
imputed to us; for that also is faith and a good work. That
therefore must have another faith from whence it must proceed.
And so in infinitum.
Many other things there are in the ensuing explication of the
justification of Abraham, the nature of his faith and his right-
eousness before God, with the application of them to all that
believe, which may be justly pleaded to the same purpose with
those passages of the context which we have insisted on. But
if every testimony should be pleaded which the Holy Ghost
has given to this truth, there would be no end of writing. One
thing more I shall observe and put an end to our discourse on
this chapter.
Vers. 6 — 8. The Apostle pursues his argument to prove the
freeness of our justification by faith, without respect to works,
through the imputation of righteousness, in the instance of par-
don of sin, which essentially belongs thereto. And this he does
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 361
by the testimony of the Psalmist, who places the blessedness of
a man in the remission of sins. His design is not thereby to
declare the full nature of justification, which he had done be-
fore, but only to prove the freeness of it from any respect to
works in the instance of that essential part of it. " Even as
David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom
God imputeth righteousness without works (which was the
only thing he designed to prove by this testimony) saying,
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven." He describes
their blessedness by it, not that their whole blessedness consists
therein ; but this concurs to it wherein no respect can possibly
be had to any works whatever. And he may justly from hence
describe the blessedness of a man, in that the imputation of
righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin, (both which the
Apostle mentions distinctly) wherein his whole blessedness as
to justification consists, are inseparable. And because remis-
sion of sin is the first part of justification, and the principal part
of it, and has the imputation of righteousness always accom-
panying it, the blessedness of a man may be well described
thereby. Yea, whereas all spiritual blessings go together in
Christ, Eph. i. 3; a man's blessedness may be described by any
of them. But yet the imputation of righteousness, and the re-
mission of sin are not the same, no more than righteousness
imputed, and sin remitted, are the same. Nor does the Apostle
propose them as the same, but mentions them distinctly, both
being equally necessary to our complete justification, as has
been proved.
Rom. V. 12 — 21. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned. For until the law sin was in
the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Ne-
vertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgres-
sion, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as
the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the off'ence
of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the
gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abound-
ed unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the
gift. For the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the
free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one
man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which
receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness,
31
362 THE NATURE OF XUSTIPICATION AS DECLARED
shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all
men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall
many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the
offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even
so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life,
by Jesus Christ our Lord."
The Apostle, Rom. iii. 27, affirms, that in this matter of jus-
tification, all boasting is excluded. But here in the verse fore-
going, he grants a boasting. Ov [xovov Ss aVKa xavx^fnOa iv ta
®E«; "and not only so, but we also glory in God." He excludes
boasting in ourselves, because there is nothing in us to procure
or promote our own justification. He allows it us, "in God,"
because of the eminency and excellency of the way and means
of our justification, which in his grace he has provided. And
the "boasting" in God here allowed us, has a peculiar respect
to what the Apostle had in prospect further to discourse of.
"Not only so," includes what he had principally treated of be-
fore, concerning our justification so far, as it consists in the
pardon of sin. For although he supposes, yea, and mentions
the imputation of righteousness also to us; yet principally he
declares our justification by the pardon of sin, and our freedom
from condemnation, whereby all boasting in ourselves is ex-
cluded. But here he designs a further progress, as to that
whereon our glorying in God, on a right and title freely given
us to eternal life, depends. And this is the imputation of the
righteousness and obedience of Christ to the justification of life,
or the reign of grace, through righteousness, to eternal life.
Great complaints have been made by some concerning the
obscurity of the discourse of the Apostle in this place, by rea-
son of sundry figures of speech, which either are, or are feigned
to be therein. Howbeit I cannot but think, that if men acquaint-
ed with the common principles of Christianity, and sensible in
them.selves of the nature and guilt of our original apostasy from
God, would without prejudice read ■favtrjv triv Ttspioxrtv 'trji ypa^j;?,
" this place of the Scripture," they will grant that the design
of the Apostle is to prove, that as the sin of Adam was imput-
ed to all men to condemnation, so the righteousness and obe-
dience of Christ is imputed to all that believe to the justification
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 363
of life. The sum of it is given by Theodoret:* "See how the
things which are Christ's are compared with those which are
Adam's, the medicine with the disease, the plaster with the
wound, righteousness with sin, the blessing with the curse,
forgiveness with condemnation, obedience with transgression,
life with death, a kingdom with hell, Christ with Adam, man
with man."
The differences that are among interpreters about the expo-
sition of these words relate to the use of some particles, prepo-
sitions, and the dependence of one passage upon another; on
none of which the confirmation of the truth pleaded for depends.
But the plain design of the Apostle, and his express proposi-
tions are such, as if men could but acquiesce in them, might
put an end to this controversy.
Socinus acknowledges that this place of Scripture gives, as
he speaks, " the greatest occasion" to our opinion in this mat-
ter: for he cannot deny, but, at least, a great appearance of
what we believe, is represented in the words of the Apostle.
He therefore uses his utmost endeavour to wrest and deprave
them: and yet, although most of his artifices are since trans-
ferred into the annotations of others upon the place, he himself
produces nothing material, but what is taken out of Origen, and
the comment of Pelagius on this epistle, which is extant in the
works of Jerome, and was urged before him by Erasmus. The
substance of what he pleads for is, " that the actual transgres-
sion of Adam is not imputed to his posterity, nor a depraved
natiu'e from thence comnumicated to them. Only whereas he
had incurred the penalty of death, all that derive their nature
from him in that condition, are rendered subject to death also.
And as for that corruption of nature which is in us, or a prone-
ness to sin, it is not derived from Adam, but is a habit con-
tracted by many continued acts of our own. So also on the
other hand, that the obedience or righteousness of Christ, is not
imputed to us. Only when we make ourselves to become his
children by our obedience to him; he having obtained eternal
life for himself by his obedience to God, we are made par-
takers of the benefits thereof" This is the substance of his
long disputation on this subject, De Servator. lib. iv. cap. 6.
But this is not to expound the words of the Apostle, but ex-
* Vide quomodo quse Christi sunt cum iis quas sunt Adami conferantur, cum
morbo medicina, cum vulnere emplastrum, cum peccato justilia, cum execratione
benedictio, cum condemnatione remissio, cum transgressione obedientia, cum
mortevita, cum inferis regnum, Christus cum Adam, homo cum homine. Dial. iii.
364 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
pressly to contradict them, as we shall see in the ensuing con-
sideration of them.
I intend not an exposition of the whole discourse of the Apos-
tle, but only of those passages in it, which evidently declare
the way and manner of our justification before God.
A comparison is here proposed and pursued between the
first Adam, by whom sin was brought into the world, and the
second Adam, by whom it was taken away. And a compari-
son it is ix ■tov ivavTfiov, of things contrary, wherein there is a
similitude in some things, and a dissimilitude in others, both
sorts illustrating the truth declared in it. The general propo-
sition of it is contained in ver. 12. " As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all
men, for that all have sinned." The entrance of sin and pun-
ishment into the world, was " by one man;" and that "by one"
sin as he afterwards declares. Yet were they not confined to
the person of that one man, but belonged equally to all. This
the Apostle expresses, inverting the order of the effect and
cause. In the entrance of it, he first mentions the cause or sin,
and then the effect or punishment. "By one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin;" but in the application of it to all
men, he expresses first the effect, and then the cause; "death
passed on all men, for that all have sinned." Death, on the
first entrance of sin, passed on all; that is, all men became lia-
ble and obnoxious to it, as the punishment due to sin. All men
that ever were, are, or shall be, were not then existent in their
own persons. But yet were they all of them, then, upon the
first entrance of sin, made subject to death, or liable to punish-
ment. They were so by virtue of divine constitution upon their
federal existence in tlie one man that sinned. And actually they
became obnoxious in their own persons to the sentence of it,
upon their first natural existence, being born children of wrath.
It is hence manifest what sin it is that the Apostle intends,
namely, the actual sin of Adam; the one sin of that one com-
mon person whilst he was so. For although the corruption and
depravation of our nature, necessarily ensues thereon, in every
one that is brought forth actually in the world by natural gen-
eration; yet is it the guilt of Adam's actual sin alone, that ren-
dered them all obnoxious to death upon the first entrance of
sin into the world. So death entered by sin, the guilt of it, ob-
noxiousness to it, and that with respect to all men universally.
Death here comprises the whole punishment due to sin, be it
what it will, concerning which we need not here to dispute.
IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUL, ETC. 365
"The wages of sin is death," Rom. vi. 23, and nothing else.
Whatever sin deserves in the justice of God, whatever punish-
ment God at any time appointed or threatened to it, it is com-
prised in death: " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die
the death." This therefore the Apostle lays down as the foun-
dation of his discourse, and of the comparison which he intends;
namely, that in and by the actual sin of Adam, all men are
made liable to death, or to the whole punishment due to sin.
Tliat is, the guilt of that sin is imputed to them. For nothing
is intended by the imputation of sin to any, but the rendering
them justly obnoxious to the punishment due to that sin; as
the not imputing of sin, is the freeing of men from being subject
or liable to punishment. And this sufficiently evidences the
vanity of the Pelagian gloss that death passed upon all, merely
by virtue of natural propagation from him who had deserved
it, without any imputation of the guilt of sin to them; which is
a contradiction to the plain words of the Apostle. For it is the
guilt of sin, and not natural propagation, that he affirms to be
the cause of death.
Having mentioned sin and death,- the one asthe only cause
of the other, the guilt ofsin,of the punishment of death, sin de-
serving nothing but death, and death being due to nothing but
sin, he declares how all men universally became liable to this
punishment, or guilty of death, e^'w navtsi'v^ixaptov, iriquoomnes
peccaverunt; " in wliora all have siijned." J'or it relates to
the one man that sinned, in whom all sinned; which is evident
from the elfect thereof, in as much as " in him all died," 1 Cor.
XV. 22. Or as it is here, on his sin " death passed on all men."
And this is the evident sense of the words, S7t(. being put for iv,
which is not unusual in the Scripture. See Matt. xv. 5. Rom.
iv. IS; V. 2. Phil. i. 3. Heb. ix. 17. And it is so often used by,
the best writers in the Greek tongue: so Hesiod fut^ov 5' sjti
Ttaaiv apistov, inodua in omnibus rebus optbnus. So i^ vynv
cativ, in vobis siturn est, fovto in' t^ot xntai, hoc in me situm
est. And this reading of the words is contended for by Aus-
tine against the Pelagians, rejecting their eo quod ox propterea.
But I shall not contend about the reading of the words. It
is the artifice of our adversaries to persuade men, that the
force of our argument to prove from hence the imputation of
the sin of Adam to his posterity, depends solely upon interpret-
ing these words, £^' w, " in whom." We shall therefore grant
them their desire, that they are better rendered by eo quod,
propterea, or quatenus; "in as much as," '' because." Only
31*
366 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
we must say, that here is a reason given, why "death passed
on all men, in as much as all have sinned," that is, in that sin
whereby death entered into the world.
It is true. Death by virtue of the original constitution of the
law, is due to every sin, whenever it is committed. But the
present inquiry is, how death passed at once on all men, how
they came liable and obnoxious to it upon its first entrance by
the actual sin of Adam; which cannot be by their own actual sin.
Yea, the Apostle in the next verses affirms, that death passed on
them also, who never sinned actually, or as Adam did, whose sin
was actual. And if the actual sins of men in imitation of Adam's
sin were intended, then should men be made liable to death,
before they had sinned. For death upon its first entrance into
the world, passed on all men, before any one man had actually
sinned, but Adam o-rily. But that men should be liable to
death, which is nothing but the punishment of sin, when they
have not sinned, is an open contradiction. For although
God by his sovereign power might inflict death on an innocent
creature, yet that an innocent creature should be guilty of
death is impossible. For to be guilty of death, is to have siimed.
Whe'j'efore this expres'sion, "in as much as all have sinned,"
expressibgthe desert £lnd guilt of death, at that time when sin
and death" first entered into the world, no sin can be intended
in it, but the sin of Adam, and our interest therein; eramus
enim o?7i?ies ille unus homo. And this can be no otherwise,
but by the imputation of the guilt of that sin to us. For the
act of Adam not- being ours inherently and subjectively, we
cannot be concerned in its eflect, but by the imputation of its
guilt. For the communication of that to us which is not in-
herent in us, is, that which we intend by imputation.
^ This is the rt^otaai? of the intended comparison, which I have
insisted the longer on, because the Apostle lays in it the foun-
dation of all that he afterwards infers, and asserts in the whole
comparison. And here some say there is an 6,vo.vtoTiQlo.tov in
his discourse, that is, he lays down the proposition on the part
of Adam, but does not show what answers to it on the con-
trary in Christ. And Origen gives the reason of the silence of
the Apostle herein, namely, "Lest what is to be said therein,
should be abused lay any to sloth and negligence." For
whereas he says i^ume,^ " as," which is a note of similitude, " by
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;" so the
drtoSortif or reddition should be, " So, by one, righteousness en-
tered into the world, and life by righteousness."
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 367
This he acknowledges to be the genuine filhng up of the
comparison, but it was not expressed by the Apostle, "Lest
men should abuse it to negligence or security," supposing that
to be done already, which should be done afterwards. But as
this plainly contradicts and averts most of what he further as-
serts in the exposition of the place; so the Apostle concealed
not any truth upon such considerations. And as he plainly
expresses that which is here intimated, verse 19, so he shows
how foolish and wicked any such imaginations are, as suppose
that any countenance is given hereby to any, to indulge them-
selves in their sins.
Some grant, therefore, that the Apostle conceals the expres-
sion of what is ascribed to Christ, in opposition to what lie
had affirmed of Adam and his sin, to verse 19. But the truth is, it
is sufficiently included in the close of ver. 14, where he affirms of
Adam, that in those things whereof he treats, he " was the figure
of him that was to come." For the way and manner whereby
he introduced righteousness and life, and communicated them
to men, answered the way and manner whereby Adam intro-
duced sin and death which passed on all the world. Adam
being the figure of Christ, look how it was with him, with re-
spect to his natural posterity as to sin and death; so it is with
the Lord Christ, the second Adam and his spiritual posterity,
with respect to righteousness and life. Hence we argue,
If the actual sin of Adam was so imputed to all his poste-
rity, as to be accounted their own sin to condemnation, then
is the actual obedience of Christ, the second Adam, imputed
to all his spiritual seed, that is, to all believers, to justification.
I shall not here further press this argument, because the
ground of it will occur to us afterwards.
The two next verses containing an objection and an answer
returned to them, wherein we have no immediate concern-
ment, I shall pass by.
Verses 15, 16. The Apostle proceeds to explain his compa-
rison in those things, wherein there is a dissimilitude between
the things compared.
" But not as the offence, so is the free gift; for if through the
offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God,
and the gift by grace, by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many."
The opposition is between rtapartT'co;ua on the one hand, and
;KapK5^aon the other; between which, a dissimilitude is asserted,
not as to their opposite effects of death and life, but only as to the
368 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
degreesof their efficacy, with respect to those effects, naparttufxa,
"the offence, the fall, the sin, the transgression;" that is tou
Ivoj Tiapaxoyj, "the disobedience of one," verse 19. Hence the
first sin of Adam, is generally called the /all, to TtapaxTi^fia.
That which is opposed hereto, is to xa-p^o^ta; donum, donnm
gratuitum, heneficium, id quod Deus gratijicatur; that is,
;^aptj r^v &iov, xac ficopsa iv ;^apiTt t»7 tod ivo(; dvSptortov Ir^nov
XpKJTOD, as it is immediately explained; "the grace of God,
and the free gift by grace, through Jesus Christ." Wherefore,
although this word, in the next verse, precisely signifies the
righteousness of Christ, yet here it comprehends all the causes
of our justification, in opposition to the fall of Adam, and the
entrance of sin thereby.
The consequence and efiect tov ftapartticfxatoi of the offence,
the fall, is, that " many be dead." No more is here intended
by many, but only that the effects of that one offence were not
confined to one: and if we inquire who, or how many those
many are, the Apostle tells us, that they are "all men" univer-
sally, that is, all the posterity of Adam. By this one offence,
because they ail sinned, therein they are all dead; that is, ren-
dered obnoxious and liable to death, as the punishment due to
that one offence. And hence also it appears, how vain it is to
wrest those words of ver. 12. " In as much as all have sinned,"
to any other sin, but the first sin in Adam; seeing it is given
as the reason why death passed on them, it being here plainly
affirmed, that they are dead, or that death passed on them by
that one offence.
The efficacy tov %api.ai^afoi, of the "free gift," opposed here-
to, is expressed, as that which "abounded much more." Be-
sides the thing itself asserted, which is plain and evident, the
Apostle seems to me to argue the equity of our justification by
grace, through the obedience of Christ, by comparing it with
the condemnation that befel us by the sin and disobedience of
Adam. For if it were just, meet, and equal that all men should
be made subject to condemnation for the sin of Adam; it is
much more so, that those who believe, should be justified by
the obedience of Christ, through the grace and free donation of
God. But wherein, in particular, the gift by grace abounded
to many, above the efficacy of the fall to condemn, he declares
afterwards. And, that whereby we are freed from condemna-
tion, more eminently than we are made obnoxious to it by the
fall and sin of Adam, by that alone we are justified before
God. .But this is by the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 369
through Jesus Christ alone, which we plead for, ver. 16. An-
other difference between the things compared is expressed, or
rather the instance is given in particular of the dissimilitude
asserted in general before.
" And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for
the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift
is of many offences unto justification."
At' si/05 afiaptriaavto^, " by oue that sinned," is the same with
So' tvoi Tiapanfi^ixato^, " by one siu. One offence," the one sin of
that one man. Kpcfxa, we render "judgment." Most inter-
preters do it by reatus, guilt, or crimen, which is derived from
it. So nfliyn judicium, is used in the Hebrew for guih, Jer.
xxvi. 11. "The judgment of death is to this man," this man
is guilty of death, has deserved to die. First therefore there
was rCapartT'wjtta " the siu, the fall," tov tvoi afia^t7]!lavto? " of OUe
man that sinned," it was his actual sin alone. Thence follow-
ed x^ifia, reatus, " guilt;" this was common to all. In and by ■
that one sin, guilt came upon all. And the end hereof, that
which it rendered men obnoxious to, is xataxpt^a, " condemna-
tion;" "guilt to condemnation;" and this guilt to condemna-
tion which came upon all, was si ho; " of one" person, or sin.
This is the order of things on the part of Adam. (1) naparttcofia.
the one sin. (2) Kpi^a the guilt that thereon ensued to all. (3)
Kataxpv^a the Condemnation which that guilt deserved. And
their Antitheta or opposites in the second Adam, are (1) ;tap'(^M»
the free donation of God. (2) Ai^prjixa the gift of grace itself, or
the righteousness of Christ. (3) Atxatw^a or Stxanoaij fco>^5, jus-
tification of life. But yet though the Apostle thus distinguishes
these things to illustrate his comparison and opposition, yet
that which he intends by them all, is the righteousness and
obedience of Christ, as he declares, ver. 18, 19. This in the
matter of our justification, he (1) calls Xaptojua with respect to
the free gratuitous grant of it by the grace of God, Aiopia ttj^
;t;aptroj; and (2) Acopjj^a with respect to us who receive it: a
free gift it is to us; and (3) j^ixai,ujfA.a, with respect to its effect
of making us righteous.
Whereas therefore, by the sin of Adam imputed to them,
'•■ guilt came on all men unto condemnation," we must inquire
wherein the free gift was otherwise. " Not as by one that
sinned, so was the gift." And it was so in two things: for (1)
condemnation came upon all by one offence. But being under
the guilt of that one offence, we contract the guilt of many
more, innumerable. Wherefore if the free gift had respect
370
THE NATURE OP JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
only to that one offence, and intended itself no farther, we
could not be delivered; wherefore it is said to be of *• many
offences," that is, of all our sins and trespasses whatever. (2)
Adam and all his posterity in him, were in a state of accept-
ance with God, and placed in a way of obtaining eternal life
and blessedness, wherein God himself would have been their
reward. In this estate by the entrance of sin, they lost the
favour of God, and incurred the guilt of death or condemna-
tion, for they are the same. But they lost not an immediate
right and title to life and blessedness. For this they had not,
nor could have before the course of obedience prescribed to
them was accomplished. That therefore, which came upon
all by the one offence, was the loss of God's favour in the ap-
probation of their present state, and the judgment or guilt of
death and condemnation. But an immediate right to eternal
life, by that one sin was not lost. The free gift is not so. For
as by it we are freed, not only from one sin, but from all our
sins, so also by it we have a right and title to eternal life. For
therein " grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life,"
ver. 22.
The same truth is further explained and confirmed, ver. 17.
" For if by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more
they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of right-
eousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." The design
of the Apostle having been sufficiently manifested in our ob-
servations on the former verses, I shall from this only observe
those things which more immediately concern our present sub-
ject. And (1) it is worth observation, with what variety of
expressions the Apostle sets forth the grace of God in the justi-
fication of believers. Atxaiw^a, 8u,pi^iAa,, ;taptj, ;t«P"^,"'=^' rtfpioafta
;taptToj, Scopta tr^i buxaioavvr^i. Nothing is Omitted that may any
way express the freeness, sufficiency, and efficacy of grace to
that end. And although these terms seem some of them to be
coincident in their signification, and to be used by him promis-
cuously, yet every one includes something that is peculiar, and
all of them set forth the whole work of grace. Atxaiu;ua seems
to me to be used in this argument for 6txavo%oyr^na, which is the
foundation of a cause in trial, the matter pleaded, whereon the
person tried is to be acquitted and justified. And this is the
righteousness of Christ, " of one," Ac^pjj^ua, or a free donation
is exclusive of all desert and conditions on our part, who re-
ceive it. And it is that whereby we are freed from condemna-
tion, and have a right to the justification of life. Xapij is the
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 371
free grace and favour of God, which is the original or efficient
cause of our justification, as was declared chap. iii. 24. Xapcsixa
has been explained before. Ucpieana ;t»P'*<'J "the abundance
of grace," is added to secure believers of the certainty of the
effect. It is that whereto nothing is wanting to our justifica-
tion. Awpta ttj? Sixauoswyji expresses the free grant of that right-
eousness which is imputed to us to the justification of life,
afterv/ards called the obedience of Christ. Be men as wise
and learned as they please, it becomes us all to learn to think,
and speak of those divine mysteries from this blessed Apostle,
who knew them better than we all, and besides, wrote by di-
vine inspiration.
And it is marvellous to me, how men can break through the
fence that he has made about the grace of God, and obedience
of Christ in the work of our justification before God,, to intro-
duce their own works of obedience, and to find a place for them
therein. But the design of Paul and that of some men in declar-
ing this point of our justification before God, seem to be very
opposite and contrary. His whole discourse is concerning the
grace of God, the death, blood, and obedience of Christ, as if
he could never sufficiently satisfy himself in the setting out and
declaration of them, without the least mention of any works or
duties of our own, or the least intimation of any use that they
are of herein. But all their pleas are for their own works and
duties; and they have invented as many terms to set them out
by, as the Holy Ghost has used for the expression and declara-
tion of the grace of God. Instead of the words of wisdom be-
fore mentioned, which the Holy Ghost has taught, wherewith
he fills up his discourse, theirs are filled with conditions, pre-
paratory dispositions, merits, causes, and I know not what
trappings for our own works. For my part I shall choose
rather to learn of him, and accommodate my conceptions and
expressions of gospel mysteries, and of this, in especial, con-
cerning our justification, to his who cannot deceive me ; than
trust to any other conduct, how specious soever its pretences
may be.
2. It is plain in this verse, that no more is required of any
one to justification, but that he receive " the abundance of grace
and the gift of righteousness." For this is the description that
the Apostle gives of those that are justified, as to any thing
that on their part is required. And as this excludes all works
of righteousness which we do; for by none of them do we re-
ceive the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness; so
372 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
it does also the imputation of faith itself to our justification, as
it is an act and duty of our own; for faith is that whereby we
receive the gift of righteousness, by which we are justified.
For it will not be denied, but that we are justified by the gift
of righteousness, or the righteousness which is given to us; for
by it have we right and title to life. But our faith is not this
gift; for that which receives, and that which is received, are not
the same.
3. Where there is rtspteeaa xapmo^, and xo'pf'i vrt^prctpiaesvovea,
" abounding grace, superabounding grace," exerted in our jus-
tification, no more is required thereto. For how can it be said
to abound, yea, to superabound, not only to the freeing of us
from condemnation, but the giving of us a title to life; if in any
thing it is to be supplied, and eked out by works and duties of
our own? The things intended fill up these expressions, al-
though to some they are but an empty noise.
4. There is a gift of righteousness required to our justifica-
tion, which all must receive, who are to be justified. And all
are justified who do receive it; for they that receive it, shall
" reign in life by Jesus Christ." And hence it follows, (1) that
the righteousness whereby we are justified before God, can be
nothing of our own, nothing inherent in us, nothing performed
by us. For it is that which is freely given us, and this dona-
tion is by imputation. " Blessed is the man unto whom the
Lord imputeth righteousness," chap. iv. 6. And by faith we
receive what is so given and imputed, and otherwise we con-
tribute nothing to our participation of it. This it is to be "justi-
fied" in the sense of the Apostle. (2) It is such a righteous-
ness as gives right and title to eternal life. For they that
receive it ''shall reign in life." Wherefore it cannot consist in
the pardon of sin alone. For (1) the pardon of sin can in no
tolerable sense be called " the gift of righteousness." Pardon of
sin is one thing, and righteousness another. (2) Pardon of sin
does not give right and title to eternal life. It is true, he whose
sins are pardoned, shall inherit eternal life; but not merely by
virtue of that pardon, but through the imputation of righteous-
ness, which inseparably accompanies it, and js the ground of it.
The description which is here given of our justification by
grace in opposition to the condemnation, that we were made
liable to by the sin of Adam, and in exaltation above it, as to
the efficacy of grace above that of the first sin, in that thereby
not one but all sins are forgiven, and not only so, but a right
to life eternal is communicated to us, is this, That we receive
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 373
the grace of God, and the gift of righteousness, which gives us
a right to life by Jesus Christ. But this is to be justified by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ received by faith alone.
The conclusion of what has been evinced in the manage-
ment of the comparison insisted on, is fully expressed and
further confirmed in verses 18, 19.
Verse 18. " Therefore as by the offence of one judgment
came upou all men unto condemnation, even so by the right-
eousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto the
justification of life." So we read the words. '" By the of-
fence of one;" the Greek copies vary here. Some read t'w hi
Ttaparttoifiaft, wliom Beza follows, and our translation in the
margin; "by one offence;" most by ro -gov hoi rcapartTfco^att,
" by the offence of one ;" and so afterwards as to righteousness ;
but both are to the same purpose. For the one offence in-
tended, is the offence of one, that is, of Adam: and the one
righteousness, is the righteousness of one, Jesus Christ.
The introduction of this assertion by apa ooji/, the note of a
syllogistical inference, declares what is here asserted to be the
substance of the truth pleaded for. And the comparisonis con-
tinued, ws " so, after the same manner."
That which is affirmed on the one side, is 6t' ho^ TtapaTttu^a-io?
fv? rtavtai avdpuTiovs ft? xa-taxpifia', " by the siu Or fall of OUC, OR
all men unto condemnation." that is, judgment, say we, repeat-
ing xpt^tia from the foregoing verse. But xpifia n? xataxpifia is
guilt, and that only. By the sin of one, all men became guilty,
and were made obnoxious to condemnation. The guilt of it
is imputed to all men. For no otherwise can it come upon
them to condemnation, no otherwise can they be rendered
obnoxious to death and judgment on account thereof For
we have evinced that by death and condemnation in this
disputation of the Apostle, the whole punishment due to
sin, is intended. This therefore is plain and evident on that
hand.
In answer hereto, the Scxaiu/xa of one as to the causality of
justification, is opposed to the TtapaTttiofia of the other, as to its
causality to, or of condemnation. At svo? Sixaiufiato^, " By the
righteousness of one;" that is, the righteousness that is plead-
able £15 8ixacu>aiv to justification. For that is 5txoiu:-;ua a right-
eousness pleaded for justification. By this, say our translators,
" the free gift came upon all;" repeating a^apio^ua from the fore-
going verse, as they had done xpt^ua before on the other hand.
The Syriac translation renders the words without the aid of
32
374
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
any supplement: "Therefore as by the sin of one, condemna-
tion was unto all men, so by the righteousness of one, justifi-
cation unto life shall be unto all men." And the sense of the
words is so made plain without the supply of any other word
into the text. But whereas in the original the words are not
xaT'axpSjUa scj Tiavta^ avOpurtovi, but ftj }iavfai avOfXurtovi sij xaT'axpt;ita,
and so in the latter clause, somewhat from his own foregoing
words is to be supplied to answer the intention of the Apostle.
And this is ^faptafia gratiosa donatio, the free grant of riglit-
eousness; or 6iopyjna the free gift of righteousness unto justifi-
cation. The righteousness of one, Christ Jesus, is freely
granted to all believers, to the justification of life. For the "all
men" here mentioned are described by, and limited to them
that "receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of right-
eousness by Christ," verse 17.
Some vainly pretend from hence a general grant of right-
eousness and life to all men, whereof the greatest part are
never made partakers; than which nothing can be more oppo-
site nor contradictory to the Apostle's design. Men are not
made guilty of condemnation from the sin of Adam, by such a
divine constitution, as that they may, or on some conditions
may not be obnoxious thereto. Every one so soon as he ac-
tually exists, and by virtue thereof, is a descendant from the
first Adam, is actually in his own person liable thereto, and
the wrath of God abides on him. And no more are intended
on the other side, but those only who by their relation through
faith to the Lord Christ the second Adam, are actually inte-
rested in the justification of life. Neither is the controversy
about the imiversality of redemption by the death of Christ
herein concerned. For those by whom it is asserted, do not
affirm that it is thence necessary that the free gift to the justi-
fication of life, should come on all, for that they know it does
not do. And of a provision of righteousness and life for men
in case they believe, although it be true, yet nothing is spoken
in this place. Only the certain justification of them that believe,
and the way of it is declared. Nor will the analogy of the
comparison here insisted on, admit of any such interpretation.
For the all on the one hand, are all and only those who derive
their being from Adam by natural propagation. If any man
might be supposed not to do so, he would not be concerned in
his sin or fall. And so really it was with the man Christ
Jesus. And those on the other hand, are only those who derive
a spiritual life from Christ. Suppose a man not to do so, and
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 375
he is no way interested in the righteousness of one to the jus-
tification of life. Our argument from the words is this: As
the sin of one that came on all to condemnation, was the sin
of the first Adam imputed to them, so the righteousness of the
one to the justification of life that comes on all believers, is the
righteousness of Christ imputed to them. And what can be
more clearly affirmed or more evidently confirmed than this is
by the Apostle, I know not. Yet is it more plainly expressed,
verse 19. "•' For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous."
This is well explained by Cyrillus Alexandrinus.* " As by
the transgression of the first man, in the origin of our race, we
were doomed to death, so by the obedience and righteousness
of Christ, inasmuch as he subjected himself to the law, of
which he himself was the author, blessing and vivification
through the Spirit have reached to our whole nature." And
by Leo.t " In order to restore life to all, he undertook the
cause of all, that as by the guilt of one, all have been made
sinners, so by the innocence of one, all might be made inno-
cent; that righteousness might flow to men from him who as-
sumed the nature of man."
That which he before called Ttapantcu/xa and 5txai(o;ua he now
expresses by rtapaxot^ and vjiaxo^, " disobedience and obedience."
The rtapaxor? of Adam or his disobedience was his actual trans-
gression of the law of God. Hereby, saith the Apostle, " many
were made sinners;" sinners in such a sense as to be obnox-
ious to death and condemnation. For liable to death they
could not be made, unless they were first made sinners or
guilty. And this they could not be, but that they are esteemed
to have sinned in him, whereon the guilt of his sin was im-
puted to them. This therefore he aflirms, namely that the
actual sin of Adam was so the sin of all men, as that they
were made sinners thereby, obnoxious to death and condem-
nation.
* Quemadmodum prsevaricatione primi hominis ut in primitiis generis nostri,
morti addicti fuimus; eodem modo per obedientiam et justitiam Christi, in quan-
tum seipsum legi subjecit, quamvis legis author essct, benedictio et vivificatio
quae per Spiritum est, ad totam nostram penetravit naturarn. In Joan. lib. 11.
cap. 25.
t Ut autem reparet omnium vitam.recepit omnium causam; ut sicut per unius
reatum omnes facti fuerunt peccatores, ita .per unius innocentiam omnes fierent
innocentes; inde in homines manaret justitia, ubi est humana suscepta natura.
Epist. 13. ad Juvenalem.
376 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
That which he opposes hereto, is 17 vrtmxot; " the obedience
of one," that is, of Jesus Christ. And this was the actual
obedience that he yielded to the whole law of God. For as
the disobedience of Adam was his actual transgression of the
whole law; so the obedience of Christ was his actual accom-
pUshment or fulfilling of the whole law. This the antithesis
requires.
Hereby "many are made righteous." How? By the impu-
tation of that obedience to them. For, so and no otherwise,
are men made sinners by the imputation of the disobedience of
Adam. And this is that which gives us a right and title to
eternal life; as the Apostle declares, verse 21. "That as sin
reigned unto death; so might grace reign through righteous-
ness unto eternal life." This righteousness is no other but the
" obedience of one," that is, of Christ, as it is called, verse 18.
And it is said to " come upon" us, that is, to be imputed to
us; for blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteous-
ness. And hereby we have. not only deliverance from that
death and condemnation whereto we were liable by the sin of
Adam, but the pardon of many offences, that is, of all our per-
sonal sins, and a right to life eternal through the grace of God;
for we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus.
And these things are thus plainly and fully delivered by the
Apostle, to whose sense and expressions also (so far as may
be) it is our duty to accommodate ours. What is off'ered in
opposition hereto, is so made up of exceptions, evasions, and
perplexed disputes, and leads us so far off from the plain words
of the Scripture, that the conscience of a convinced sinner
knows not what to fix upon to give it rest and satisfaction, nor
what it is that is to be believed to justification.
Piscator in his Scholia on this chapter and elsewhere, insists
much on a specious argument against the imputation of the
obedience of Christ to our justification. But it proceeds evi-
dently on an open mistake and false supposition, and is contra-
dictory to the plain words of the text. It is true, as he ob-
serves and proves, that our redemption, reconciliation, pardon
of sin, and justification are often ascribed to the death and
blood of Christ in a signal manner. The reasons of it have
partly been intimated before, and a further account of them
shall be given immediately. But it does not thence follow,
that the obedience of his life wherein he fulfilled the whole
law, being made under it for us, is excluded from any causali-
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 377
ty therein, or is not imputed to us. But in opposition thereto
he thus argues.*
" If the obedience of Christ's life was imputed to us for
righteousness, it was not necessary that Christ should die for
us; for it was our being unrighteous that made his death ne-
cessary, 1 Pet. iii. 18. If therefore we were justified by his
life, there remained no reason why he should die for us; for
the justice of God does not allow of the punishment of the
righteous. But he punished us in Christ; or, what is equiva-
lent, he punished Christ for us and in our stead, after he had
lived a holy life, as is evident from Scripture. Therefore we
were not justified by the holy life of Christ. Again, Christ
died to procure for us that righteousness of God, 2 Cor. v. 21.
He had not therefore procured it before his death."
But this whole argument I say, proceeds upon an evident
mistake. For it supposes such an order of things, as that the
obedience of Christ or his righteousness in fulfilling the law, is
first imputed to us, and then the righteousness of his death' is
afterwards to take place, or to be imputed to us, which on that
supposition he says would be of no use. But no such order
or divine constitution is pleaded or pretended in our justifica-
tion. It is true, the life of Christ, and his obedience to the
law preceded his sufferings, and undergoing the curse thereof;
neither could it otherwise be. For this order of these things
between themselves was made necessary from the law of na-
ture; but it does not thence follow that it n)ust be observed in
the imputation or application of them to us. For this is, an
effect of sovereign wisdom and grace, not respecting the natu-
ral order of Ciirisl's obedience and suffering, but the moral
order of the things whereto they are appointed. And although
we need not assert, nor do I so do, different acts of the impu-
tation of the obedience of Christ to the justification of life, or a
right and title to life eternal, and of the suffering of Christ to
the pardon of our sins and freedom from condemnation; but
by both we have both, according to the ordinance of God, that
* Si obedientia vitce Christi nobis ad justitiam imputaretur, non fuit opus
Christum pro nobis mori; mori enim nccesse fuit pro nobis injustis, 1 Pet. iii, 18.
Quod si ergo justi effecti sumus per vitani iUius, causa nulla relicta fuit cur pro
nobis morerctur; quia justitia Dei non patilur ut puniat justos. At punivit nos
in Christo, sou quod idem valet punivit Christum pro nobjs et loco nostri, postea-
quam ille sancte vixisset, ut ecrtum est e scriptura. Ergo non sunuis justi efFecti
per sanctam vitam Christi. Item, Christus mortuus est ut justitiam illam Dei nobis
acquireret. 2 Cor. v. 21. Non igitur illam acquisiverat ante mortem.
?!2*
378 1?HE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
Christ may be all in all; yet as to the effects themselves, in the
method of God's bringing sinners to the justification of life,
the application of the death of Christ to them to the pardon of
sin and freedom from condemnation, is in order of nature, and
in the exercise of faith, antecedent to the application of his
obedience to us for a right and title to life eternal.
The state of the person to be justified, is a state of sin and
wrath, wherein he is liable to death and condemnation. This is
that which a convinced sinner is sensible of, and which alone
in the first place he seeks for deliverance from. What shall we
do to be saved? This in the first place is presented to him in
the doctrine and promise of the gospel, which is the rule and
instrument of its application. And this is the death of Christ,
Without this no actual righteousness imputed to him, not the
• obedience bfChrist himself, will give him relief. For he is sen-
sible, that he |ias sinned, and thereby come short of the glory of
God, and is under the condemnatory sentence of the law. Until
he receives a deliverance from hence, it is to no purpose to pro-
pose that to him which should give him right to life eternal.
•But upon a supposition hereof, he is no less concerned in what
shall yet further give him title thereto, that he may "reign in
life through righteousness." Herein I say in its order, con-
science is no less concerned than in deliverance from condemna-
tion. And this order is expressed in the declaration of the
fruit and effects of the mediation of Christ; Dan. ix. 24, "to
make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting
righteousness." Neither is there any force in the objection
against it, that actually the obedience of Christ preceded his
suffering. For the method of their application is not prescribed
thereby; and the state of sinners to be justified, with the na-
ture of their justification, requires it should be otherwise, as
God also has ordained. But because the obedience and suffer-
ings of Christ, were concomitant from first to last, both equally
belonging to his state of exinanition, and cannot in any act or
instancd^be separated, but only in notion or imagination, seeing
he suffered in all his obedience, and obeyed in all his suffer-
ing, Heb. V. 8; and neither part of our justification, in freedom
from condemnation, and right to life eternal, can be supposed
to be or exist without the other according to the ordinance and
constitution of God; the whole effect is jointly to be ascribed to
the whole mediation of Christ, so far as he acted towards God
in our behalf, wherein he fulfilled the whole law both as to the
penalty exacted of sinners, and the righteousness it requires to
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 379
life as an eternal reward. And there are many reasons why
our justification is in the Scripture by way of eminency ascribed
to the death and biood-sheddmg of Christ,
For, (1) The grace and love of God, the principal efficient
cause of our justification, are therein made most eminent and
conspicuous. For this is most frequently in the Scripture pro-
posed to us as the highest instance, and undeniable demonstra-
tion of divine love and grace. And this is that which principally
we are to consider in our justification, the glory of ihem being
the end of God therein. " He made us accepted in the Beloved
to the praise of the glory of his grace," Ephes. i. 6. Wherefore
this being the fountain, spring and sole cause, both of the obe-
dience of Christ, and of the imputation thereof to us, with the
pardon of sin and righteousness thereby, it is every where in
the Scripture proposed as the prime object of our faith in our
justification, and opposed directly to all our own works what-
ever. The whole of God's design herein is, that "grace may
reign through righteousness unto eternal life." Whereas there-
fore this is made most evident and conspicuous in the death
of Christ, our justification is in a peculiar manner assigned
thereto.
2. The love of Christ himself and his grace are peculiarly
exalted in our justification; that all men may "honour the Son
even as they honour the Father." Frequently are they express-
ed to this purpose, 2 Cor. viii. 9. Gal. ii. 20. Phil. iii. 6, 7. Rev.
i. 5, 6. And those also are most eminently exalted in his death,
so that all the effects and fruits of them are ascribed thereto
in a peculiar maimer; as nothing is more ordinary than, among
many things that concur to the same effect, to ascribe it to that,
which is most eminent among them, especially if it cannot.be
conceived as separated from the rest.
3. This is the clearest testimony, that what the Lord Christ ,
did and suffered was for us, and not for himself.. For without',
the consideration hereof, all the obedience which he yielded to
the law, might be looked on as due only on his own account,
and himself to have been such a Saviour as the Socinians
imagine, who should do all with us from God, and nothing
with God for us. But the sufl'ering of the curse of the law by
him who was not only an innocent man, but also the Son of
God, openly testifies that what he did and suffered was for us,
and not for himself. It is no wonder therefore if our faith as
to justification be in the first place, and principally directed to
his death and blood-shedding.
380
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
4. All the obedience of Christ had still respect to the sacrifice
of himself, which was to ensue, wiierein it received its accom-
plishment, and whereon its efficacy to our justification depend-
ed. For as no imputation of actual obedience would justify
sinners from the condemnation that was passed on them for
the sin of Adam; so although the obedience of Christ was not
a mere preparation or qualification of his person for his suffer-
ing; yet its efficacy to our justification depended on his suffer-
ing that was to ensue, when his soul was made an offering for
sin.
5. As was before observed, reconciliation and the pardon of
sin through the blood of Christ, do directly in the first place
respect our relief from the state and condition whereinto we
were cast by the sin of Adam, in the loss of the favour of God,
and liableness to death; this therefore is that which principally
and in the first place a lost convinced sinner, such as Christ
calls to himself, looks after. And therefore justification is emi-
nently and frequently proposed as the eflect of the blood-shed-
ding and death of Christ, which are the direct cause of our recon-
ciliation and pardon of sin. But yet from none of these con-
siderations does it follow that the obedience of the one man
Christ Jesus is not imputed to us, whereby "grace might reign
through righteousness unto eternal life."
The same truth is fully asserted and confirmed Rom. viii.
1 — 4. But this place has been of late so explained and so
vindicated by another in his learned and judicious exposition
of it, (namely Dr. Jacombe) that nothing remains of weight to
be added to what has been pleaded and argued by him. And
indeed the answers, wliich he subjoins to the arguments where-
by he confirms the truth, to the most usual and important ob-
jections against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
are sufficient to give just satisfaction to the minds of unpreju-
diced, unengaged persons. I shall therefore pass over this
testimony, as that which has been so lately pleaded and vin-
dicated ; and not press the same things, it may be, as is not
unusual, to their disadvantage.
Romans x. 3, 4. — " For they (the Jews who had a zeal for
God, but not according to knowledge) being ignorant of God's
righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteous-
ness, have not submitted themselves to the- righteousness of
God. For Christ is the end of the law 'for righteousness to
every one that believeth."
What is here determined, the Apostle enters upon the propo-
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 381
sition and declaration of, chap. ix. 30. And because what he
had to propose was somewhat strange, and unsuited to the
common apprehensions of men, he introduces it with that pre-
fatory interrogation, n oijj/ ipovfisv; which he uses on the hke
occasions, chap. iii. 5; vi. 1; vii. 7; ix. 14. " What shall we
then say?" that is, is there in this matter unrighteousness with
God? as verse 14, or what shall we say to these things, or
what is that which is to be said herein? That wliich hereon
he asserts is, that " the Gentiles wliich followed not after
righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the right-
eousness which is of faith; but Israel which followed after the
law of righteousness hath not attained unto the law of right-
eousness," that is, to righteousness itself before God.
Nothing seems to be more contrary to reason, than what is
here made manifest by the event. The Gentiles who lived in
sin and pleasures, not once endeavouring to attain to any
righteousness before God, yet attained to it upon the preaching
of the gospel. Israel on the other hand which followed after
righteousness, diligently in all the work^of the law and duties
of obedience to God thereby, carh'b short of it, attained not
to it. All preparations, all dispositions, all merit as to right-
eousness and justification are excluded from the Gentiles.
For in all of these there is more or less a following after right-
eousness which is denied of them "all. Only by faith in him
who justifies the ungodly, they attain righteousness, or they
attained the righteousness of faith. For to attain righteous-
ness by faith, and to attain the righteousness which is of faith,
are the same. Wherefore all things that are comprised any
way in following after righteousness, such as are all our duties
and works, are excluded from any influence upon our justifi-
cation. And this is expressed to declare the sovereignty and
freeness of the grace of God herein; namely that we are justi-
fied freely by his grace, and that on our part all boasting is
excluded. Let men pretend what they will, and dispute what
they please, those who attain to righteousness and justification
before God, when they follow not atler righteousness, do it by
the gratuitous imputation of the righteousness of another to
them.
It may be it will be said; it is true in the time of their hea-
thenism they did not at all follow after righteousness, but when
the truth of the gospel was revealed to them, then they followed
after righteousness and attained it. But (1) This is directly to
contradict the Apostle, in that it says, that they attained not
382 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
righteousness, but only as they followed after righteousness,
whereas he affirms the direct contrary. (2) It takes away the
distinction which he puts between them and Israel; namely,
that the one followed after righteousness, and the other did
not. '(3) To follow after righteousness in this place, is to fol-
low after a righteousness of our own; to establish their own
righteousness, chap. x. 3. But this is so far from being a
means of attaining righteousness, that it is the most effectual
obstruction thereof.
If therefore those who have no righteousness of their own,
v/ho are so far from it, that they never endeavoured to attain
it, do yet by faith receive that righteousness wherewith they
are justified before God, they do so by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ to them; or let some other way be
assigned.
In the other side of the instance concerning Israel, some
must liear whether they will or not, that wherewith they are
not pleased. Three things are expressed of them: 1. Their
attempt. 2. Their success. 3. The reason of it.
Their attempt or endearvour was in this, that they followed
after the law of righteousness. Atwxw, the word whereby their
endeavour is expressed, signifies that which is earnest, diligent
and sincere. By it the Apostle declares what his was, and
what ours ought to be, in the duties and exercise of gospel
obedience, Phil. iii. 12. They were not indiligent in this mat-
ter, but " instantly served God day and night." Nor were
they hypocritical; for the Apostle bears them record in this
matter, that they had " a zeal of God," chap. x. 2. And that
which they thus endeavour after was vo^oi dtxacoawr^i " the law
of righteousness;" that law which prescribed a perfect per-
sonal righteousness before God; the things "which if a man
do, he shall live in them," chap. x. 5. Wherefore the Apostle
has no other respect to the ceremonial law in this place, but
only as it was branched out from the moral law by the will of
God, and as the obedience to it belonged thereto. When he
speaks of it separately he calls it "the law of commandments
contained in ordinances," but it is no where called the law of
righteousness, the law whose righteousness is fulfilled in us,
chap. viii. 4. Wherefore their following after this law of right-
eousness, was their diligence in the performance of all duties
of obedience, according to the directions and precepts of the
moral law.
2. The issue of this attempt is, that they attained not to the
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 383
law of righteousness, ft? rorov Bixaioawtj? sx itp^aes, that is, they
attained not a righteousness before God hereby. Though this
was " the end of the law," namely, a righteousness before God,
wherein a man might hve, yet could they never attain it.
3. An account is given of the reason of their failing, in attain-
ing that which they so earnestly endeavoured after. And this
was in a double mistake that they were under; first, in the
means of attaining it; secondly, in the righteousness itself, that
was to be sought after. The first is declared, ver. 32. "Because
not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law." Faith
and works are the two only ways whereby righteousness may
be attained, and they are opposite and inconsistent; so that
none do or can seek after righteousness by them both. They
will not be mixed and made one entire means of attaining right-
eousness. They are opposed as grace and works; what is of
the one, is not of the other, Rom. xi. 6. Every composition of
them in this matter, is Male sarta gratia neqidcquam coit et
rescmditur, " a patched up reconciliation, no sooner made than
broken." And the reason is, because the righteousness which
faith seeks after, or which is attainable by faith, is that which
is given to us, imputed to us, which faith alone receives. " It
receives the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness,"
Bntthat which is attainable by works, is our own, inherent in
us, wrought out by us, and not imputed to us; for it is nothing
but those works themselves, with respect to the law of God.
And if righteousness before God, be attainable alone by faith,
and that in contradistinction to all works, which if a man do
them according to the law, he shall even live in them, then is it
by faith alone that we are justified before God, or nothing else,
on our part, is required thereto. And of what nature this right-
eousness must be, is evident.
Again, if faith and works are opposed as contrary and incon-
sistent, when considered as the means of attaining righteous-
ness or justification before God, as plainly they are, then is it
impossible we should be justified before God by them, in the
same sense, way and manner. Wherefore, when the Apostle
James affirms, that a man is justified by works, and not by
faith only, he cannot intend our justification before God, where
it is impossible they should both concur. For not only are they
declared inconsistent by the Apostle in this place, but it would
introduce several sorts of righteousness to justification, that are
inconsistent and destructive of each other. This was the first
mistake of the Jews, whence this miscarriage ensued; they
384 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATIOiST AS DECLARED
"sought not after righteousness by faith, but as it were by the
works of the law."
Their second mistake was as to the righteousness itself, where-
on a man might be justified before God. For this they judged
was to be their own righteousness, chapter x. 3. Their own
personal righteousness consisting in their own duties of obe-
dience, they looked on as the only righteousness, whereon they
might be justified before God. This therefore they went about
to establish as the Pharisees did, Luke xviii. 11, 12. And this
mistake, with their design thereon, to establish their own right-
eousness, was the principal cause that made them reject the
righteousness of God, as it is with many, at this day.
Whatever is done in us, or performed by us, as obedience to
God, is our own righteousness. Though it be done in faith, and
by the aids of God's grace; yet is it subjectively ours, and so
far as it is a righteousness, it is our own. But all righteousness
whatever which is our own", is so far diverse from the righteous-
ness by which we are to be justified before God, that the most
earnest endeavour to establish it, that is, to render it such, as
may justify us, is an effectual means to cause us to refuse a
submission to, and an acceptance of that, whereby alone we
may be so.
This ruined the Jews, and will be the ruin of all that shall
follow their example in seeking after justification; yet is it not
easy for men to take any other way, or to be taken otf from
this. So the Apostle intimates in that expression, "they sub-
mitted not themselves unto the righteousness of God." This
righteousness of God is of that nature, that the proud mind of
man is altoo:ether unwilling to bow and submit itself to; yet
can it no otherwise be attained, but by such a submission or
subjection of mind, as contains in it a total renunciation of any
righteousness of our own. And those who reproach others for
affirming, that men endeavouring after morality or moral right-
eousness, and resting therein, are in no good way for the par-
ticipation of the grace of God by Jesus Christ, do expressly
deride the doctrine of the Apostle, that is, of the Holy Ghost
himself.
Wherefore, the plain design of the Apostle is to declare, that
not only faith, and the righteousness of it, and a righteousness
of our own by works, are inconsistent, that is, as to our justifi-
cation before God; but also that the intermixture of our own
works, in seeking after righteousness, as the means thereof
wholly diverts us from the acceptance of, or submission to the
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 3S5
righteousness of God. For the righteousness which is of faith,
is not our own, it is the righteousness of God, that which he
imputes to us. But the righteousness of works is our own, that
which is wrought in us, and by us. And as works have no
aptitude nor meetness in themselves to attain or receive a right-
eousness, which because it is not our own, is imputed to us,
but are repugnant to it, as that which will cast them down from
their legal dignity of being our righteousness; so faith has no
aptitude nor meetness in itself, to be an inherent righteousness,
or so to be esteemed, or as such to be imputed to us, seeing its
principal faculty and efficacy consists in fixing all the trust,
confidence, and expectation of the soul, for righteousness and
acceptation with God, upon another.
Here was the ruin of those Jews: they judged it a better, a
more probable, yea, a more righteous and holy way for them,
constantly to endeavour after a righteousness of their own by
duties of obedience to the law of God, than to imagine that
they could come to acceptance with God by faith in another.
For tell them, and such as them, what you please, if they have
not a righteousness of their own, that they can set upon its legs,
and make to stand before God, the law will not have its accom-
plishment, and so will condemn them.
To demolish this last fort of unbelief, the Apostle grants that
the law must have its end, and be completely fulfilled, or there
is no appearing for us as righteous before God; and withal
shows them how this is done, and where alone it is to be sought
after. " For Christ, (says he) is the end of the law for right-
eousness to every one that believeth," ver. 4. We need not
trouble ourselves to inquire in what various sense Christ may
be said to be ttxoi vouu. "the end, the complement, the perfec-
tion of the law," The Apostle suificiently determines his in-
tention, in affirming not absolutely that he is the " end of the
law," but he is so m SixaioawTjv "for righteousness" unto every
one that believeth. The matter in question, is a righteousness
to justification before God. And this is acknowledged to be
the righteousness which the law requires. God looks for no
righteousness from us, but what is prescribed in the law. The
law is nothing but the rule of righteousness; God's prescription
of a righteousness, and all the duties of it to us. That we should
be righteous herewith before God, was the first original end of
the law. Its other ends at present of the conviction of sin, and
judging or condemning for it, were accidental to its primitive
constitution. This righteousness, which the law requires, which
33
386 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
is all and only that righteousness which God requires of us, the
accomplishnnent of this end of the law, the Jews sought after
by their own personal performance of the works and duties of
it. But hereby in the utmost of their endeavours they could
never fulfil this righteousness, nor attain this end of the law,
which yet if men do not, they must perish for ever.
Wherefore the Apostle declares, that all this is done another
way; that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, and its end,
as to a righteousness before God, attained, and that is in and
by Christ. For what the law required, that he accomplished,
which is accounted to every one that believes.
Herein the Apostle issues the whole disquisition about a
righteousness wherewith we may be justified before God, and
in particular, how satisfaction is given to the demands of the
law. That which we could not do, that which the law could
not effect in us, in that it was weak through the flesh, that
which we could not attain by the works and duties of it, that
Christ has done for us, and so is '• the end of the law for right-
eousness to every one that believeth."
The law demands a righteousness of us; the accomplishment
of this righteousness is the end which it aims at, and which is
necessary to our justification before God. This is not to be at-
tained by any works of our own, by any righteousness of our
own. But the Lord Christ is this for us, and to us; which,
how he is or can be but by the imputation of his obedience and
righteousness in the accomplishment of the law, I cannot un-
derstand; I am sure the Apostle does not declare.
The way whereby we attain to this end of the law, which
we cannot do by our utmost endeavours to establish our own
righteousness, is by faith alone, for " Christ is the end of the
law for righteousness to every one that believeth.^' To mix
any thing with faith herein, as it is repugnant to the nature of
faith and works, with respect to their aptitude and meetness,
for the attaining of a righteousness, so it is as directly contra-
dictory to the express design and words of the Apostle, as any
thing that can be invented.
Let men please themselves with their distinctions, which I
understand not; (and yet perhaps should be ashamed to say so,
but that I am persuaded they understand them not themselves,
by whom they are used) or with cavils, objections, feigned con-
sequences, which I value not; here I shall for ever desire to fix
my soul, atid herein to acquiesce; namely, that " Christ is the
end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth."
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 387
And I suppose, that all they who understand aright what it is
that the law of God requires of them, how needful it is that it
be complied with, and that the end of it be accomplished, with
the utter insufficiency of their own endeavours to those ends,
will at least, when the time of disputing is over, betake them-
selves to the same refuge and rest.
The next place I shall consider in the Epistles of this Apostle
is 1 Cor. i. 30. " But of liim are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God
is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption."
The design of the Apostle in these words is to manifest, that
whatever is wanting to us on any account that we may please
God, live to him, and come to the enjoyment of him, that we
have in and by Jesus Christ; and this on the part of God from
mere, free, and sovereign grace, as verses 25 — 29 declare. And
we have all these things by virtue of our insition or implanta-
tion in him; i% o-vtov, " from, of, or by him." He by his grace
is the principal efficient cause hereof. And the effect is, that
we are in Christ Jesus; that is engrafted in him, or united
to him, as members of his mystical body, which is the con-
stant sense of that expression in the Scripture. And the be-
nefits which we receive hereby are enumerated in the follow-
ing words. But first the way whereby we are made partakers
of them, or they are communicated to us, is declared; -'who of
God is made unto us." It is so ordained of God, that he him-
self shall be made or become all this to us. Oj i^ivqOiq r^i^iv arto
0£OD, where arto denotes the efficient cause, as £5 did before.
But how is Christ thus " made unto us of God," or what act of
God is it that is intended thereby? Socinus says it is "a gene-
ral act of the providence of God, whence it is come to pass, or
is so fallen out, that one way or other the Lord Christ should
be said to be all this to us." But it is an especial ordinance
and institution of God's sovereign grace and wisdom, designing
Christ to be all this to us, and for us, with actual imputation
thereon, and nothing else, that is intended. Whatever interest
therefore we have in Christ, and whatever benefit we have by
him, it all depends on the sovereign grace and constitution of
God, and not on any thing in ourselves. Whereas then we have
no righteousness of our own, he is appointed of God to be our
righteousness, and is made so to us; which can be no other-
wise, but that his righteousness is made ours, for he is made
it to us (as he is likewise the other things mentioned) so that all
boasting, that is in ourselves, should be utterly excluded, and
388
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
"that he that glorieth, should glory in the Lord," ver. 29, 31.
Now there is such a righteousness, or such a way of being
righteous whereon we may have somewhat to glory, Rom. iv,
2, and which does not exclude boasting, chap. iii. 27. And this
cannot possibly be but when our righteousness is inherent in
us. For that, however it may be procured, or purchased or
wrought in us,, is yet our own, so far as any thing can be our
own, whilst we are creatures. Tiiis kuid of righteousness
therefore is here excluded. And the Lord Christ being so made
righteousness to us of God, as that all boasting and glorying on
our part, or in ourselves, may be excluded, yea, being made so,
for this very end, that so it should be, it can be no otherwise,
but by the imputation of his righteousness to us. For thereby
is the grace of God, the honour of his person and mediation
exalted, and all occasion of glorying in ourselves utterly cut off.
We desire no more from this testimony, but that whereas we
are in ourselves destitute of all righteousness in the sight of
God, Christ is by a gracious act of divine imputation made of
God righteousness unto us, in such a way as that all our glory-
ing ought to be in the grace of God, and the righteousness of
Christ himself. Bellarmine attempts three answers to this tes-
timony, the two first whereof are coincident; and in the third,
being on the rack of light and truth, he confesses and grants
all that we plead for. (1) He says, "that Christ is said to be
our righteousness, because he is the efficient cause of it, as God
is said to be our strength; and so there is in the words a meto-
nymy of the etlect for the cause." And I say it is true, that
the Lord Christ, by his Spirit, is the efficient cause of our per-
sonal inherent righteousness. By his grace it is effected and
wrought in us; he renews our natures into the image of God,
and without him we can do nothing: so that our habitual and
actual righteousness is from him. But this personal righteousness
is our sanctification and nothing else. And ahhough the same
internal habit of inherent grace, with operations suitable thereto,
be sometimes called our sanctification, and sometimes our right-
eousness, with respect to those operations; yet is it never distin-
guished into our sanctification and our righteousness. But his
being made righteousness to us in tliis place, is absolutely dis-
tinct from his being made sanctification to us, which is that in-
herent righteousness which is wrought in us by the Spirit and
grace of Christ. And his working personal righteousness in
us, which is our sanctification, and the imputation of his right-
eousness to us, whereby we are made righteous before God,
IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUL, ETC. 389
are not only consistent, but the one of them cannot be without
the other.
2. He pleads, "that Christ is said to be made righteousness
to us, as he is made redemption. Now he is our redemption,
because he has redeemed us. So is he said' to be made right-
eousness to us, because by him we become righteous;" or as
another speaks, " because by him alone we are justified." This
is the same plea with the former, namely, that there is a meto-
nymy of the effect for the cause in all these expressions; yet
what cause they intend it to be, who expound the words "by
him alone we are justified," I do not understand. But Bellar-
mine is approaching yet nearer the truth, for. as Christ is said
to be made of God, redemption to us, because by his blood we
are redeemed, or freed from sin, death, and hell, by the ransom
he paid for us, or have redemption through his blood, even the
forgiveness of sins: so he is said to be made righteousness to
ns, because through his righteousness granted to us of God, we
are justified; as God's making him to be righteousness to us,
and our becoming the righteousness of God in him; and the
imputation of his righteousness to us, that we may be righteous
before God, are the same.
His third answer, as was before observed, giants the whole
of what we plead. For it is the same which he gives to Jer.
xxiii. 6, which place he conjoins with this, as of the same sense
and importance, giving up his whole cause in satisfaction to
them, in the words before transcribed.
Socinus prefaces his answer to this testimony with an admi-
ration, that any should make use of it, or plead it in this cause,
it is so impertinent to the purpose. And indeed, a pretended
contempt of the arguments of his adversaries is the principal
artifice he makes use of, in all his replies and evasions; where-
in I am sorry to see that he is followed by most of them, who,
together with him, oppose the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ. And so of late the use of this testimony which re-
duced Bellarmine to so great a strait, is adiriiredat,on the only
ground and reason wherewith it is opposed by Socinns. Yet
are his exceptions to it such, that I cannot also but a little on
tlie other hand wonder, that any learned man should be trou-
bled with them, or seduced by them. For he only plea<]s, " that
if Christ be said to be made righteousness to us, because his
righteousness is imputed to us; then is he said to be made wis-
dom to us, because his wisdom is so imputed; and so of his
sanctification; which none will allow ;yea,.he must be redeem-
.'33*
390 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
ed for lis, and his redemption be imputed to lis." But there is
nothing of force, nor truth in tiiis pretence. For it is built only
on this supposition, that Christ must be made to us of God, all
these things, in the same way and manner; whereas they are of
such different natures,that it is utterly impossible he should so be.
For instance, he is made sanctification to us, in that by his Spirit
and grace we are freely sanctified. But he cannot be said to be
made redemption to us, in that by his Spirit and grace we are
freely redeemed. And, if he is said to be made righteousness
to us, because by his Spirit and grace he works inherent right-
eousness in us, then is it plainly tlie same with his being made
sanctification to us. Neither does he himself believe that Christ
is made all these things to us in the same way and manner.
And therefore he does not assign any special way whereby he
is so made them all; but clouds it in an ambiguous expression,
that he becomes all these things to us " in the providence of
God." But ask him in particular, how Christ is made sancti-
fication to us, and he will tell you that it was by his doctrine
and example alone, with some such general assistance of the
Spirit of God as he will allow. But now, this is no way at all
whereby Christ was made redemption to us; which being a
thing external, and not wrought in us, Christ can be no other-
wise made redemption to us, than by the imputation to us of
what he did, that we might be redeemed, or the reckoning it
on our account. Not that he was redeemed. for us, as he child-
ishly cavils, but that he did -that whereby we are redeemed.
Wherefore Christ is made of God righteousness to us in such a
way and manner, as the nature of the thing requires. Say
some, it is "because by him we are justified." Howbeit the
text says not, that by him we are justified, but he is of God
made righteousness to us, which is not our justification, but the
ground, cause and reason whereon we are justified. Righteous-
ness is one thing, and justification is another. Wherefore we
must inquire how we come to have that righteousness whereby
we are justified. And this the same Apostle tells us plainly is
by imputation. " Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord im-
puteth righteousness." Rom. iv. 6. It follows then, that "Christ
being made unto us of God righteousness," can have no other
sense, but that his righteousness is imputed to us, which is what
this text undeniably confirms.
The truth pleaded for, is yet more emphatically expressed,
2 Cor. V. 21. '.^For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 391
in him." The paraphrase of Anstine on these words gives the
sense of them.* " He was made sin, that we might be made
righteousness, not our own, but of God; not in ourselves, but in
him; as he was made sin, not his own, but ours, not in himself,
but in us." And the words of Chrysostome upon this place,
to the same purpose, have been cited before at large.
To set out the greatness of the grace of God in our reconcilia-
tion by Christ, he describes him by that periphrasis toj ixri yvovta
d;uapTiav, " who kuew uo sin," or who knew not sin. He knew
sin in the notion or understanding of its nature; and he knew
it experimentally in the eftects which he underwent and suffer-
ed; but he knew it not, that is, was most remote from it, as to
its commission or guilt. So that he '' knew no sin," is abso-
lutely no more, but " he did no sin, neither was guile found in
his mouth," as it is expressed 1 Pet. ii. 22; or, that he ''was
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," Heb. vii. 26.
Howbeit, there is an emphasis in the expression which is not
to be neglected. For as it is observed by Chrysostome, and by
sundry learned persons after him, as containing an auxesis;
(ou;^c. tov fJLt] d^ttpT'ttJ'Oi'i'a fiovov (^syft) dxxa top fir^Ss yj/orra d,uapi'iav)
"not merely who did not sin, but who did not know sin;" so
those who desire to learn the excellency of the grace of God
herein, will have an impression or a sense of it on their minds,
from this emphatical expression, which the Holy Ghost chose to
make use of to that end, and the observation of it is not to be
despised.
" He hath made him to be sin;" that is, say many exposi-
tors, "a sacrifice for sin."t " As he was offered for sins, he is
not without cause said to be made sin, since under the law,
even the animal which was offered for sins is called sin." So
•the sin and trespass offering are often expressed by nxen and
□a'Nj " the sin and trespass" or guilt. And I shall not contend
about this exposition, because that signified in it, is according
to the truth. But there is another more proper signification of
the word; aj^aptoa being put for d,tiapT'co?io5 sin for a simier; that
is passively not actively, not by inhesion but imputation. For
this the phrase of speech, and force of the antithesis, seem to
* Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in nobis sed in ipso;
sicut ipse peccatum non suuni sed nostrum, non in se, sed in nobis constitutum.
Enchirid. ad Laurent, cap. 4.
t Quemadmodum oblatus est pro peccatis, non immerito peccatum factus dicitur,
quia et bestia in lege quse pro peccatis offerebatur, peccatum nuncupatur. Arn-
bros. in locum.
392 THE XATURE OF JUSTIFICATIOIV AS DECLARED
require. Speakiiigof another sense, Esiius himself on the place
adds, as that which he approves,* " The meaning of this pas-
sage must be explained according to the comment of Chrysos-
tooi and the Greek commentators, who interpret the expression
sin, emphatically, a great sinner; as if the Apostle should say,
for our sake he treated him as sin and wickedness itself; that
is, as a man notoriously wicked, as on whom he laid the ini-
quities of us all." And if this be the interpretation of the Greek
scholiasts, as indeed it is, Luther was not the first, who affirmed,
that "Christ was made the greatest sinner," namely, by impu-
tation. But we shall allow the former exposition, provided
that the true notion of a sin offering, or expiatory sacrifice, be
admitted. For although this neither did, nor could consist in
the transfusion of the inherent sin of the person tiHhe sacrifice;
yet it did consist in the translation of the guilt of the sinner to
it, as is fully declared Lev. xvi. 20, 2L Only I must say, that
I grant this signification of the word to avoid cotitentioi]. For
whereas some say, that a^aprta signifies sin, and a sacrifice for
sin, it cannot be allowed, f^an in Kal, signifies to err, to sin,
to transgress the law of God. In Piel it has a contrary signi-
fication, namely, to cleanse from sin, or to make expiation of
sin. Hence nsan is most frequently used with respect to its de-
rivation from the first conjugation, and signifies sin, tra7isgres-
sion and guilt. But sometimes with respect to the second, and
then it signifies a sacrifice for sin, to make expiation of it.
And so it is rendered by the LXX, sometimes by Ixaa^oi, Ezek.
xliv. 27, sometimes i^aa-anoi, Exod. xxx. 10. Ezek. xliii. 23. a
propitiation, a propitiatory sacrifice. Sometimes by ayviana,
Num. xix. 19. and i).yv<.<s^oi, purification or cleansing. But
d^uaprta absolutely no where in any good author, nor in the
Scripture, signifies a sacrifice for sin, unless it may be allowed
to do so in this one place alone. For whereas the LXX render
nN'^n constantly by d^apfia, where it signifies sin; where it de-
notes an offering for sin, and they retain that word, they do it
by rt£^c duapriaj, an elliptical expression which they invented
for that which they knew d.uaptia of itself neither did, nor could
signify, Lev. iv. 3, 14, 32, 35; v. 6 — 11; vi. 30; viii. 2. And
they never omit the preposition, unless they name the sacrifice,
* Hie intellectus cxplicandus est per commentarium Graecorum Chrysostomi et
caeterorum; quia peccatam emphaticas ititerpretantur magnum peccatorem; ac
si dicat Apostolus, nostri causa tractavit cum tanquam ipsum peccatum, ipsuiii
scelus, id est, tanquam hominem insigniter sceleratum, ut in quo posuerit iniqui-
tates omnium nostrum.
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC.
393
as noexoi tTJi afxaptia^. This is observed also by the Apostle in
the New Testament. For twice expressing the sin-ofiering by
this word, he uses that phrase rtepc d^uaprtaj Rom. viii. 3. Heb.
X. 6. But no wliere uses d^apfia to that pnrpose. If it be there-
fore of that signification in this place, it is so here alone. And
whereas some think, that it answers Piuciilum in the Latin, it
is also a mistake, for the first signification of d^aptia is confessed
to be sin, and they would have it supposed that thence it is
abused to signify a sacrifice for sin. But Piaculum is properly
a sacrifice, or any thing whereby sin is expiated or satisfaction
is made for it. And very rarely it is abused to denote such a
sin or crime as deserves public expiation, and is not otherwise
to be pardoned, so Virgil:
Distulit in seram commissa Piacula mortem.
But we shall not contend about words, whilst we can agree
about what is intended.
The only inquiry is, how God made him to be sin. "He
hath made him to be sin;" so that an act of God is intended.
And this is elsewhere expressed, by his " laying all our iniqui-
ties upon him," or causing them to meet on him, Isa. liii. 6.
And this was by the imputation of our sins to him, as the sins
of the people were put on the head of the goat that they should
be no more theirs but his, so as that he was to carry them
away from them. Take " sin" in either sense before mention-
ed, either of a "sacrifice for sin," or a "sinner," and the im-
putation of the guilt of sin, antecedently to the punishment of
it, and in order thereto, must he understood. For in every
sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the beast to
be off'ered antecedent to the sacrificing of it, and therein its
sufl^ering by death. Therefore in every oflfering for sin, he that
brought it was to put his hand on the head of it. Lev. i. 4.
And that the transferring of the guilt of sin to the off'ering,
was thereby signified, is expressly declared, Lev. xvi. 21.
Wherefore if God made the Lord Christ a sin offering for us,
it was by the imputation of tlie guilt of sin to him antece-
dently to his suflering. Nor could any offering be made for
sin, without a typical translation of the guilt of sin to it. And
therefore when an offering was made for the expiation of the
guilt of an uncertain murder, those who were to make it by
the law, namely, the elders of the city that were next to the
place where the man was slain, were not to offer a sacrifice,
because there was none to confess guilt over it, or to lay guilt
394 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
upon it; but whereas the neck of an heifer was to be stricken
off, to declare the punishment due to blood, they were to wash
their hands over it to testify their own innocency, Deut. xxi.
1 — 8. But a sacrifice for sin without the imputation of guilt
there could not be. And if the word be taken in the second
sense, namely, for a sinner, that is, by imputation, and in God's
esteem, it must be by the imputation of guilt. For none can
in any sense be denominated a sinner from mere sutfering.
None indeed say, that Christ was made sin, by the imputation
of punishment to him, which has no proper sense; but they
say, sin was imputed to him as to punishment, which is in-
deed to say, that the guilt of sin was imputed to him. For
the guilt of sin, is its respect to punishment, or the obligation
to punishment which attends it. And that any one should be
punished for sin without the imputation of the guilt of it to
him, is impossible; and were it possible would be unjust. For
it is not possible that any one should be punished for sin pro-
perly, and yet that sin be none of his. And if it be not his by
inhesion, it can be his no other way but by imputation. One
may sutler on the occasion of the sin of another, that is no
way made his, but he cannot be punished for it; for punish-
ment is the recompense of sin on account of its guilt. And
were it possible, where is the righteousness of punishing any
one for that which no way belongs to him? Besides, imputa-
tion of sin and punishing are distinct acts, the one preceding
the other, and therefore tlie former is only of the guilt of sin;
wherefore the Lord Christ was made sin for us by the impu-
tation of the guilt of our sins to him.
But it is said, that " if the guilt of sin were imputed to
Christ, he is excluded from all possibility of merit, for he suf-
fered but what was his due; and so the whole work of Christ's
satisfaction is subverted. This must be so, if God in judg-
ment reckoned him guilty and a sinner.'^ But there is an
ambiguity in these expressions. If it be meant that God in
judgment reckoned him guilty and a sinner inherently in his
own person, no such thing is intended. But God laid all our
sins on him, and in judgment spared him not, as to what was
due to them. And so he suffered not what was his due upon
his own account, but what was due to our sin, which it is im-
piety to deny; for if it were not so, he died in vain, and we
are still in our sins. And as his satisfaction consists herein,
nor could be without it, so it does not in the least derogate
from his merit. For supposing the infinhe dignity of his per-
IN THE EriSTLES OF FAUL, ETC. 395
son, and his voluntary susception of our sin to answer for it,
which ahered not his state and condition, his obedience therein
was highly meritorious.
In answer hereto, and by virtue hereof, we are " made the
righteousness of God in him." This was the end of his being
made sin for us. And by whom are we so made ? it is by God
himself, for it is " God that justifieth," Rom. viii. 33. It is
God who imputes righteousness; chap. iv. 6. Wherefore it is
the act of God in our justification that is intended. And to be
made the righteousness of God, is to be made righteous before
God, though emphatically expressed by the abstract for the
concrete, to answer what was said before of Christ being made
sin for us. To be made the righteousness of God, is to be
justified; and to be made it so in him, as he was made sin for
us, is to be justified by the imputation of his righteousness to
us, as our sin was imputed to him.
No man can assign any other way whereby he was made
sin, especially his being made so by God, but by God's laying
all our iniquities upon him, that is, imputing our sin to him.
How then are we made the righteousness of God in him?
By the infusion of a habit of grace, say the Papists generally;
then by the rule of the antithesis, he must be made sin for us,
by the infusion of a habit of sin, which would be a blasphem-
ous imagination. By his meriting, procuring, and purchasing
righteousness, for us, say others: so possibly we might be
made righteous hy him; but so we cannot be made righteous
in him. This can only be by his righteousness as we are in
him, or united to him. To be righteous in him is to be right-
eous with his righteousness, as we are one mystical person
with him. Wherefore,
To be made the righteousness of God in Christ as he was
made sin for us, and because he was so, can be no other but
to be made righteous by the imputation of his righteousness
to us, as we are in him or united to him. All other expositions
of these words are both jejune and forced, leading the mind
from the first, plain, obvious sense of them.
Bellarmine excepts to this interpretation, and it is his fifth
argument against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
" If the righteousness of Christ be truly imputed to us, so that
through it we are reckoned and esteemed rigliteous, as if it
were properly our own inherent and formal righteousness, we
ought to be reckoned and esteemed not less righteous than
Christ himself, and consequently ought to be called and es-
396
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
teemed redeemers and saviours of the world; which is the
height of absurdity."* Lib. ii. cap. 7. de Justificatione. So
full an answer has been returned hereto, and that so fre-
quently, by Protestant divines, that I would not have men-
tioned it, but that divers among ourselves are pleased to bor-
row it from him, and make use of it. "For," say they, " if
the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us so as thereby to
be made ours, then are we as righteous as Christ himself, be-
cause we are righteous with his righteousness." Ans. 1. These
things are plainly affirmed in the Scripture, that as to ourselves,
and in ourselves, " we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags," Isa. Ixiv. 6, on the one
hand; and that "in the Lord we have righteousness and
strength, in the Lord we are justified and do glory," Isa.
xlv. 24, 25, on the other: that "if we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves;" and yet that "we are the righteous-
ness of God in Christ." Wherefore these things are consistent
whatever cavils the wit of men can raise against them; and
so they must be esteemed, unless we will comply with Soci-
nus's rule of interpretation, namely, " that where any thing
seems repugnant to our reason, though it be never so expressly
affirmed in the Scripture, we are not to admit of it, but find
out some interpretation though never so forced to bring the
sense of the words to our reason." Wherefore (2) notwith-
standing the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us,
and our being made righteous therewith, we are sinners in
ourselves, (the Lord knov/s greatly so, the best of us) and so
cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ, but only to be
made righteous in him, who are sinners in ourselves. (3) To
say, that we are as righteous as Christ, is to make a compa-
rison between the personal righteousness of Christ, and our
personal righteousness, if the comparison be of things of the
same kind. But this is foolish and impious; for notwithstand-
ing all our personal righteousness, we are sinful; he knew no
sin. And if the comparison be between Christ's personal in-
herent righteousness, and righteousness imputed to us, inhe-
sion and imputation being things of diverse kinds, it is ground-
less and of no consequence. Christ was actively righteous,
* Quinto refellitur, quoniain si verc nobis imputetur justitia Christi ut per eaiu
justi liabeainur ac ccnsereniur, ac si proprie nostra esset intrinseca lormalisque
justitia, profccto non minus justi liaberi ct censcri debereinus qiiani ipse Christus:
proinde debcremus dici atquc babcri Redemptorcs, et Salvatores raundi, quod est
absurdissimum.
IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUL, ETC. 397
we are passively so. When our sin was imputed to him, he
did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and in-
herently a sinner, but passively only, and in God's estimation.
As he was made sin, yet knew no sin, so we are made right-
eous, yet are sinful in ourselves. (4) The righteousness of
Christ as it was his personally, was the righteousness of the
Son of God; in which respect it had in itself an infinite per-
fection and value ; but it is imputed to us only with respect to
our personal want, not as it was satisfactory for all, but as
our souls stand in need of it, and are made partakers of it.
There is therefore no ground for any such comparison. (5) As to
what is added by Bellarmine that we may hereon be said to be
redeemers and saviours of the world, the absurdity of the
assertion falls upon himself; we are not concerned in it. For
he affirms directly, lib. i. de Purgator. cap. 14, that a "man
may be rightly called his own redeemer and saviour,^' which
he endeavours to prove from Dan. iv. And some of his church
affirm that the saints may be called the redeemers of others,
though improperly. But we are not concerned in these things;
seeing from the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, it
follows only that those to whom it is imputed are redeemed
and saved, not at all that they are redeemers and saviours. It
belongs also to the vindication of this testimony to show the
vanity of his seventh argument in the same case, because that
also is made use of by some among ourselves, and it is this.
" If by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we may be
truly said to be righteous and the sons of God, then may
Christ by the imputation of our unrighteousness, be said to be
a sinner and a child of the devil." Ans. (1) That which the
Scripture affirms concerning the imputation of our sins to
Christ is that " he was made sin for us." This the Greek ex-
positors, Chrysostom,Theophylact and Oecumenius with many
others take for a siniier. But all affirm that denomination to
be taken from imputation only; he had sin imputed to him,
and underwent the punishment due to it, as we have right-
eousness imputed to us, and enjoy the benefit of it. (2) The
imputation of sin to Christ, did not carry along with it any
thing of the pollution or filth of sin to be communicated to him
by transfusion, a thing impossible; so that no denomination
can thence arise which should include in it any respect to them;
a thought hereof is impious and dishonourable to the Son of
God. But his being made sin through the imputation of the
guilt of sin, is his honour and glory. (3) The imputation of
34
398 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
the sin of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, &c. such as the
Corinthians were before their conversion to Christ, does not on
any ground bring him under a denomination from those sins.
For they were so in themselves actively, inherently, subjec-
tively, and thence were so called. But that he who " knew
no sin," voluntarily taking on him to answer for the guilt of
those sins, which in him was an act of righteousness and the
highest obedience to God, should be said to be an idolater, &c.
is a fond imagination. The denomination of a sinner from sin
inherent, actually committed, defiling the soul, is a reproach,
and significative of the utmost un worthiness; but even the de-
nomination of a sinner, by the imputation of sin, without the
least personal guilt or defilement, being undergone by him to
whom it is imputed, in an act of the highest obedience, and
tending to the greatest glory of God, is highly honourable and
glorious. But (4) the imputation of sin to Christ, was ante-
cedent to any real union between him and sinners, whereon
he took their sin on him, as he would, and for what ends he
would. But the imputation of his righteousness to believers,
is consequential in order of nature to their union with him,
whereby it becomes theirs in a peculiar manner; so that there
is not a parity of reason that he should be esteemed a sinner,
as that they should be accounted righteous. And (5) we ac-
quiesce in this, that on the imputation of sin to Christ, it is
said that " God made him to be sin for us," which he could
not be, but thereby; and he was so by an act transient in its
effects, for a time only, that time wherein he underwent the
punishment due to it. But on the imputation of his righteous-
ness to us, we are made the righteousness of God with an
everlasting righteousness that abides ours always. (6) To be
a child of the devil by sin, is to do the works of the devil,
John viii. 44. But the Lord Christ in taking our sins upon
hum, when imputed to him, did the work of God in the highest
act of holy obedience, evidencing himself to be the Son of
God thereby, and destroying the works of the devil. So foolish
and impious is it, to conceive that any absolute change of state
or relation in him ensued thereon.
That by the "righteousness of God" in this place, our own
faith and obedience according to the gospel, as some would
have it, are intended, is so alien from the scope of the place,
and sense of the words, that I shall not particularly examine
it. The righteousness of God is revealed to faith, and received
by faith, and is not therefore faith itself. And the force of the
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 399
antithesis is quite perverted by this conceit. For where is it
in this, that he was made sin by the imputation of our sin to
him, and we are made righteousness, by the imputation of our
own faith and obedience to ourselves.^ But as Christ had no
concern in sin, but as God made him sin, it was never in him
inherently; so have we no interest in this righteousness, it is
not in us inherently, but only is imputed to us. Besides, the
act of God, in making us righteous, is his justifying of us.
But this is not by the infusion of the habit of faith and obedi-
ence, as we have proved. And what act of God is intended
by them, who affirm, that the righteousness of God which we
are made, is our own righteousness, I know not. The consti-
tution of the gospel law it cannot be; for that makes no man
righteous. And the persons of believers are the object of this
act of God, and that as they are considered in Christ.
The epistle of the same Apostle to the Galatians, is wholly
designed to the vindication of the doctrine of justification by
Christ, without the works of the law, with the use and means
of its improvement. The sum of his v/hole design is laid
down in the repetition of his words to the Apostle Peter, on
the occasion of his failure, there related. Gal. ii. 16. " Know-
ing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed on Jesus
Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and
not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law,
shall no flesh be justified."
That which he here asserts, was such a known, such a fun-
damental principle of truth among all believers, that their con-
viction and knowledge of it, was the ground and occasion of
their transition, and passing over from Judaism to the gospel,
and faith in Jesus Christ thereby.
And in the words the Apostle determines that great inquiry,
how, or by what means a man is, or may be justified before
God. The subject spoken of is expressed indefinitely; "a man,"
that is, any man, a Jew, or a Gentile, a believer, or an unbe-
liever ; the Apostle that spake, and they to whom he spake ;
the Galatians to whom he wrote, who also for some time had
believed and made profession of the gospel.
The answer given to the question is both negative and posi-
tive, both asserted with the highest assurance, and as the com-
mon faith of all Christians, except those who had been carried
aside from it by seducers. He asserts, that this is not, this
cannot be " by the works of the law." What is intended by
i
400 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
" the law" in these disputations of the Apostle, has been be-
fore declared and evinced. The law of Moses is sometimes
signally intended; not absolutely, but as it was the present
instance of men's cleaving to the law of righteousness, and not
submitting themselves thereon to the righteousness of God,
But that the consideration of the moral law, and the duties of
it, is in this argument any where excepted by him, is a weak
imagination; yea, it would except the ceremonial law itself;
for the observation of it, whilst it was in force, was a duty of
the moral law.
And " the works of the law," are the works and duties of
obedience which this law of God requires, performed in the
manner that it prescribes, namely, in faith, and out of love to
God above all, as has been proved. To say, that the Apostle
excludes only works absolutely perfect, which none ever did,
or could perform since the entrance of sin, is to suppose him to
dispute with great earnestness, and many arguments, against
that which no man asserted, and which he does not once men-
tion in all his discourse. Nor can he be said to exclude only
works that are looked on as meritorious, seeing he excludes all
works that there may be no place for merit in our justification,
as has also been proved. Nor did these Galatians, whom he
writes to, and convinces of their error, look for justification from
any works, but such as they performed then, when they were
believers. So that all sorts of works are excluded from any
interest in our justification, and so much weight does the Apos-
tle lay on this exclusion of works from our justification, that
he affirms that the admittance of it overthrows the whole gospel,
ver. 21. "For," says he, " if righteousness be by the law, then
is Christ dead in vain;" and it is dangerous venturing on so
sharp a fence.
Not this, or that sort of works ; not this, or that manner of
the performance of them; not this, or that kind of interest in
our justification, but all works of what sort soever, and how-
ever performed, are excluded from any kind of consideration
in our justification, as our works or duties of obedience. For
these Galatians whom the Apostle reproves, desired no more,
but that in the justification of a believer, " works of the law,"
or duties of obedience, might be admitted into a conjunction or
copartnership with faith in Christ Jesus. For that they would
exclude faith in him, and assign justification to works without
it, nothing is intimated, and it is a foolish imagination. In op-
position hereto he positively ascribes our justification to faith
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 401
in Christ alone: ''not by works, but by faith" is by faith alone.
That the particles iav fj.*; are not exceptive, but adversative,
has not only been undeniably proved by Protestant divines,
but is acknowledged by those of the Roman church, who pre-
tend to any modesty in this controversy. The words of Estius
on this place deserve to be transcribed. According to his usual
candour and ingenuousness, he remarks,* " The sense of this
passage is obscured by the particle nisi, (by which the Vulgate
renders lav jxr,, instea:d of sed or sed tantum) which according
to its strict acceptation, implies an exception to what precedes;
as if the meaning were ' a man is not justified by the works of
the law unless faith in Christ be added to them, but if faith be
added, then he is justified by the works of the law.' But as this
sense divides justification, attributing it partly to works and
partly to faith, contrary to the clear and positive meaning of the
Apostle, it is evident that it should be rejected as opposed to
the meaning and object of the Apostle. It is clear that the
particle tiisi is frequently used in Scripture in an adversative
sense, as synonymous with sed tantum."
It is not probable that we shall have an end of contending in
this world, when men will not acquiesce in such plain deter-
minations of controversies given by the Holy Ghost himself.
The interpretation of this place given, as the meaning of the
Apostle, that men cannot be justified by those works which
they cannot perform, that is, works absolutely perfect; but may
be so, and are so, by those which they can, and do perform, if
not in their own strength, yet by the aid of grace : and that
faith in Christ Jesus which the Apostle opposes absolutely to
all works whatever, includes in it all those works which he
excludes, and that with respect to that end or eff"ect with re-
spect whereto they are excluded, cannot well be supposed to
be suitable to the mind of the Holy Ghost,
Ephes. ii. 8 — 10. " For by grace ye are saved through faith,
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ; not of works,
lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship
* Sententiam reddit obscuram particula Nisi, quae si proprie ut Latinis auribus
sonat accipiatur, exceptionem facit ab eo quod praecedit, ut sensus sit hominem
non justificari ex operibus legis, nisi fides in Christum ad ea opera accedat, qu£P
si accesserit justificari sum per legis opera. Sed cum hie sensus justificationem
dividat, partim earn tribuens operibus legis, partim fidei Christi, quod est contra
definitam et absolutam Apostoli sententiam, manifestum est, interpretationera il-
1am tanquam apostolico sensui et scopo contrariam omnino repudiandam esse.
Verum constat voculam {nisi) frequenter in scripturis adversative sumi, ut idem
valeat quod sed tantunu
34*
402 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath fore-
ordained that we should walk in them."
Unless it had seemed good to the Holy Ghost to express
before hand, and to reject all the evasions and subterfuges,
which the wit of man in after ages could invent, to pervert the
doctrine of our justification before God, it is impossible they
could have been more plainly anticipated than they are in this
context. If we may take a little unprejudiced consideration of
it, I suppose what is affirmed will be evident.
It cannot be denied, but that the design of the Apostle from
the beginning of this chapter, to the end of verse 11, is to de-
clare the way whereby lost and condemned sinners come to be
delivered, and translated out of that condition into an estate of
acceptance with God, and eternal salvation thereon. And
therefore in the first place, he fully describes their natural state,
with their being obnoxious to the wrath of God thereby. For
such was the method of this Apostle. To the declaration of
the grace of God in any kind, he usually, yea, constantly pre-
mised the consideration of our sin, misery, and ruin. Others
now like not this method so well. Howbeit this hinders not,
but that it was his. To this purpose he declares to the Ephe-
sians, that they were " dead in trespasses and sins," express-
ing the power that sin had on their souls, as to spiritual life,
and all the actions of it; but withal that they lived and walk-
ed in sin, and on all accounts were the " children of wrath,"
or subject and liable to eternal condemnation, verses 1 — 3.
What such persons can do towards their own deliverance,
there are many terms found out to express, all passing my un-
derstanding, seeing the entire design of the Apostle is to prove,
that they can do nothing at all. But another cause, or other
causes of it, he finds out, and that in direct express opposition
to any thing that may be done by ourselves to that end. 'o Sb
0£os ft^ovaioi wv £v £%s£o, vcrsc 4. It is not a work for us to un-
dertake; it is not what we can contribute any thing to; "but
God, who is rich in mercy." The adversative includes an op-
position to every thing on our part, and ascribes the whole
work to God. Would men have rested on this divine revela-
tion, the church of God had been free from many of those per-
verse opinions and wrangling disputes, which it has been pes-
tered with. But they will not so easily part with thoughts of
some kind of interest in being the authors of their own happi-
ness. Wherefore two things we may observe in the Apostle's
assigning of the causes of our deUverance from a state of sin,
and acceptance with God.
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 403
1. That he assigns the whole of this work absolutely to
grace, love, and mercy, and that with an exclusion of the con-
sideration of any thing on our part, as we shall see immedi-
ately, ver. 5, 8.
2. He magnifies this grace in a marvellous manner. For
(1) He expresses it by all names and titles whereby it is signi-
fied as iXsoi, ayajifj, x°-?''ii xpv'^'^°'^vh " Hiercy, love, grace, and
kindness." For he would have us to look only to grace
herein. (2) He ascribes such adjuncts, and gives such epithetSp
to that divine mercy and grace which is the sole cause of our
deliverance in and by Jesus Christ, as render it singular, and
herein solely to be adored, n^ovaco? h iXm; 6ta tT^v Tto'Kxrjv
ayartr^v — rrtspjSaXTicof fiXovto; t'jjj xafiitoi. " Ricll in mcrcy;"
" great love wherewith he loved us;" " the exceeding riches
of his grace," in his kindness towards us, ver. 4 — 7. It cannot
reasonably be denied, that the Apostle designs deeply to affect
the mind and heart of believers with a sense of the grace and
love of God in Christ, as the only cause of their justification
before God. I think no words can express those conceptions
of the mind, which this representation of grace suggests.
Whether they think it any part of their duty to be like mind-
ed, and comply with the Apostle in this design, who scarce
ever mention the grace of God, unless it be in a way of dimi-
nution from its efficacy, and to whom such ascriptions to it as
are here made by him, are a matter of contempt, is not hard
to judge.
But it will be said these are good words indeed, but they are
only general; there is nothing of argument in all this adoring
of the grace of God in the work of our salvation. It may be,
so it seems to many. But yet to speak plainly, there is to me
more argument in this one consideration, namely, of the as-
cription made in this cause to the grace of God in this place,
than in a hundred sophisms, suited neither to the expressions
of the Scripture, nor the experience of them that believe. He
that is possessed with a due apprehension of the grace of God,
as here represented, and under a sense that it was therein the
design of the Holy Ghost to render it glorious, and alone to be
trusted to, will not easily be induced to concern himself in
those additional supplies to it from our own works and obedi-
ence, which some would suggest to him. But we may yet
look further into the words.
The case which the Apostle states, the inquiry which he has
in hand, whereon he determines as to the truth, whereia he in-
404 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
structs the Ephesiaiis, and in them the whole church of God,
is, How a lost condemned sinner may come to be accepted
with God, and thereon saved. And this is the sole inquiry
wherein we are, or intend in this controversy to be concerned.
Further we will not proceed, either upon the invitation or pro-
vocation of any. Concerning this, his position and determina-
tion is, that we are saved by grace.
This first he occasionally interposes in his enumeration of
the benefits we receive by Christ, ver. 5. But not content
therewith, he again directly asserts it, ver. 8, in the same
words; for he seems to have considered how slow men would
be in the admission of this truth, which at once deprives them
of all boastings in themselves.
What it is that he intends by our being saved, must be in-
quired into. It would not be prejudicial to, but rather advance
the truth we plead for, if by our being saved, eternal salvation
were intended. But that cannot be the sense of it in this
place, otherwise than as that salvation is included in the causes
of it, which are efi'ectual in this life. Nor do I think that in
that expression, " by grace ye are saved," our justification
only is intended, although it be so principally. Conversion to
God and sanctification are also included therein, as is evident
from ver. 5, 6. And they are no less of sovereign grace, than
is our justification itself But the Apostle speaks of what the
Ephesians beUig now believers, and by virtue of their being
so, were made partakers of in this life. This is manifest in the
whole context. For having in the beginning of the chapter
described their condition, what it was in common with all the
posterity of Adam by nature, ver. 1 — 3, he moreover declares
their condition in particular, in opposition to that of the Jews,
as they were Gentiles, Idolaters, Atheists, ver. 11, 12. Their
present delivery by Jesus Christ from this whole miserable
state and condition, that which they were under in common
with all mankind, and that which was a peculiar aggravation
of its misery in themselves, is that which he intends by their
being saved. That which was principally designed in the de-
scription of this state is, that therein and thereby they were
liable to the wrath of God, guilty before him, and obnoxious
to his judgment. This he expresses in the declaration of it,
ver. 3, answerable to that method, and those grounds, he
every where proceeds on in declaring the doctrine of justifica-
tion.
Rom. iii. 19—24. Tit. iii. 3 — 5. From this state they had
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 405
deliverance by faith in Christ Jesus. " For to as many as re-
ceived him, power is given to be the sons of God." John i. 12.
" He that believeth on him, is not condemned," that is, he is
saved, in the sense of the Apostle in this place. John iii. 15.
" He that believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting life, (is
saved) but he that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on
him," verse 36. And in this sense, saved, and salvation, are
frequently used in the Scripture. Besides he gives us so full a
description of the salvation, which he intends, from verse 13,
to the end of the chapter, that there can be no doubt of it. It is
our being " made nigh" by the blood of Christ, verse 13; our
"peace with God" by his death, verse 14, 15; our "reconcilia-
tion" by the blood of the cross, verse 16; our "access unto
God," and all spiritual privileges thereon depending, verse
18—20, &c.
Wherefore the inquiry of the Apostle and his determination
thereon, is concerning the causes of our justification before
God. This he declares and fixes both positively and negatively.
Positively (1) In the supreme moving cause on the part of God.
This is that free sovereign grace and love of his, which he illus-
trates by its adjuncts and properties before mentioned. (2) In
the meritorious procuring cause of it, which is Jesus Christ in
the work of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the ren-
dering this grace effectual to his glory, verses 7, 13, 16. (3) In the
only means or instrumental cause on our part which is faith.
" By grace are ye saved through faith," verse 8. And lest he
should seem to derogate any thing from the grace of God, in
asserting the necessity and use of faith, he adds that epanortho-
sis, and " that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." The com-
munication of this faith to us is no less of grace than is the jus-
tification which we obtain thereby. So has he secured the
whole work to the grace of God through Christ, wherein we
are interested by faith alone.
But not content herewith, he describes this work negatively,
or adds an exclusion of what might be pretended to have a con-
cernment therein. And therein three things are stated dis-
tinctly. (1) What it is he so excludes. (2) The reason whereon
he does so. (3) The confirmation of that reason, wherein he
obviates an objection that might arise thereon.
1. That which he excludes is works; " not of works," verse 9.
And what works he intends, at least principally, he himself de-
clares. Works, say some, of the law, the law of Moses. But
what concernment had these Ephesians therein, that the Apos-
406 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
tie should inform them, that they were not justified by those
works? They were never under that law, never sought for
righteousness by it, nor had any respect to it, but only, that they
were delivered from it. But it may be he intends only works
wrought in the strength of our own natural abilities, without
the aids of grace, and before believing. But what were the
works of these Ephesians antecedent to believing, he before
and afterwards declares. For " being dead in trespasses and sins,
they walked according to the course of this world in the lusts
of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind,"
verse 1 — 3. It is certain enough that these works have no in-
fluence upon our justification; and no less certain, that the
Apostle had no reason to exclude them from it, as though any
could pretend to be advantaged by them, in that which con-
sists in a deliverance from them. Wherefore the works here
excluded by the Apostle, are those works which the Ephesians
now performed, when they were believers, " quickened with
Christ;" even the works "which God hath fore-ordained, that
we should walk in them," as he expressly declared, verse 10.
And these works he excludes not only in opposition to grace,
but in opposition to faith also. " Through faith, not of works."
Wherefore he not only rejects their merit, as inconsistent with
grace, but their co-interest on our part with, or subsequent in-
terest to faith, in the work of justification before God.
If we are saved by grace through faith in Christ exclusively
of all works of obedience whatever, then cannot such works
be the whole or any part of our righteousness to the justifica-
tion of life. Wherefore another righteousness we must have
or perish for ever. Many things I know are here off"ered, and
many distinctions coined to retain some interest of works in our
justification before God; but whether it be the safest way to
trust to them, or to this plain, express, divine testimony, will
not be hard for any to determine, when they make the case
their own.
2. The Apostle adds a reason of this exclusion of works;
"not of works lest any one should boast." God has ordained
the order and method of our justification by Christ in the way
expressed, that no man might have ground, reason, or occasion
to glory or boast in or of himself. So it is expressed 1 Cor. i.
21, 30, 31. Rom. iii. 32. To exclude all glorying or boasting on
our part, is the design of God. And this consists in an ascrip-
tion of something to ourselves, that is not in others, in order to
justification. And it is works alone that can administer any
IN THE EPISTLES OP PAUL, ETC. 407
occasion of this boasting; " For if Abraham were justified by
works, he had whereof to glory," Rom. iv. 2. And it is ex-
cluded alone " by the law of faith," Rom. iii. 27. For the na-
ture and use of faith, is to find righteousness in another. And
this boasting, all works are apt to beget in the minds of men,
if applied to justification. And where there is any boasting of
this nature, the design of God towards us in this work of his
grace, is frustrated as far as lies in us.
That which I principally insist on from hence, is, that there
are no boundaries fixed in Scripture to the interest of works
in justification, so as no boasting should be included in them.
The Papists make them meritorious of it, at least of our second
justification as they call it. This, say some, ought not to be
admitted; for it includes boasting. Merit and boasting are
inseparable. Wherefore, say others, they are only causa sine
qua non, they are the condition of it; or they are our evan-
gelical righteousness before God whereon we are evangelically
justified, or they are a subordinate righteousness, whereon we
obtain an interest in the righteousness of Christ; or are com-
prised in the condition of the new covenant whereby we are
justified; or are included in faith, being the form of it, or of
the essence of it, one way or other: for herein men express
themselves in great variety. But so long as our works are
hereby asserted in order to our justification, how shall a man
be certain that they. do not include boasting; or, that they ex-
press the true sense of these words, " not of works lest any
man should boast?" There is some kind of ascription to our-
selves in this matter, which is boasting. If any shall say, that
they know well enough what they do, and know that they
do not boast in what they ascribe to works, I must say that
in general I cannot admit it. For the Papists affirm of them-
selves, that they are most remote from boasting; yet I am very
well satisfied that boasting and merit are inseparable. The
question is not what men think they do, but what judgment
the Scripture passes on what they do. And if it be said, that
what is in us, is also of the grace and gift of God, and is so ac-
knowledged, which excludes all boasting in ourselves, I say it
was so by the Pharisee, and yet was he a horrible boaster.
Let them therefore be supposed to be wrought in us in what
way men please, if they be also wrought by us and so be "the
works of righteousness, which we have done," I fear their
introduction into our justification, includes boasting in it, be-
cause of this assertion of the Apostle, " not of works lest any
408 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
man should boast." Wherefore because this is a dangerous
point, unless men can give us the direct, plain, indisputable
bounds of the introduction of our works into our justification,
which cannot include boasting in it, it is the safest course utterly
to exclude them, wherein I see no danger of any mistake in
these words of the Holy Ghost, " not of works, lest any man
should boast." For if we should be unadvisedly seduced into
this boasting, we should lose all the benefit which we might
otherwise expect by the grace of God.
3. The Apostle gives another reason why it cannot be of
works, and withal obviates an objection, which might arise
from what he had declared, verse 10. " For we are his work-
manship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God
hath before ordained, that we should walk in them." And the
force of his reason, which the causal conjunction intimates the
introduction of, consists in this: that all good works, those con-
cerning which he treats, evangelical works, are the effects of
the grace of God in them that are in Christ Jesus, and so are
truly justified antecedently in order of nature to them. But
that which he principally designed in these words, was that
which he is still mindful of, wherever he treats of this doctrine,
nam-ely to obviate an objection that he foresaw some would
make agauist it, and that is this: " If good works be thus ex-
cluded from our justification before God, then of what use are
they? we may live as we list, utterly neglect them, and yet be
justified." And this very objection do some men continue to
manage with great veheraency against the same doctrine. We
meet with nothing in this cause more frequently, than that if
our justification before God be not of works some way or other,
if they be not antecedently required thereto, if they are not a
previous condition of it, then there is no need of them: men
may safely live in an utter neglect of all obedience to God.
And on this theme men are very apt to enlarge themselves,
who otherwise give no great evidences of their own evan-
gelical obedience. To me it is marvellous, that they heed not
to what party they make an accession in the management of
this objection; namely to them, who were the adversaries of
the doctrine of grace, taught by the Apostle. It must be else-
where considered. For the present I shall say no more, but
that if the answer here given by the Apostle be not satis-
factory to them, if the grounds and reasons of the necessity
and use of good works here declared, be not judged by them
suffici'ent to establish them in their proper place and order, I
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 409
shall not esteem myself obliged to attempt their further satis-
faction.
Phil. iii. 8, 9. — " Yea doubtless, and I account all things but
loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my
Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do
count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in
him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law,
but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous-
ness which is of God by faith."
This is the last testimony which I shall insist upon, and
although it be of great importance, I shall be the more brief in
the consideration of it, because it has been lately pleaded and
vindicated by another, whereto I do not expect any tolerable
reply. For what has since been attempted by one, is of no
weight. He is in this matter ovts TptT-o; ovts ts'ta^toi. And
the things that I would observe from and concerning this testi-
mony, may be reduced to the ensuing heads.
1. That which the Apostle designs from the beginning of this
chapter, and in these verses, is in an especial manner to declare
what it is on account whereof we are accepted with God, and
have thereon cause to rejoice. This he fixes in general in an
interest in and participation of Christ by faith, in opposition to
all legal privileges and advantages, wherein the Jews whom
he reflected upon boasted and rejoiced. " We rejoice in Christ
Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh," verse 3.
2. He supposes that in order to that acceptance before God
wherein we are to rejoice, there is a righteousness necessary;
and whatever it be, that it is the sole ground of that accept-
ance. And to give evidence hereto,
3. He declares that there is a twofold righteousness that may
be pleaded and trusted to for this purpose. (l)"Our own
righteousness which is of the law." (2) That which is " through
the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."
These he asserts to be opposite and inconsistent as to the end
of our justification and acceptance with God; "not having mine
own righteousness, but that which is," &.c. And an interme-
diate righteousness between these he acknowledges not.
4. Placing the instance in himself, he declares emphatically
(so that there is scarce a greater TtaSoj, or vehemency of speech,
in all his writings,) which of those it was that he adhered to,
and placed his confidence in. And in the handling of this sub-
ject, there were some things which engaged his holy mind in
an earnestness of expression, in the exaltation of one of these,
35
410 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
namely, of the righteousness which is of God by faith, and the
depression of the other, or his own righteousness. As,
1. This was the turning point, whereon he and others had
forsaken their Judaism and betaken themselves to the gospel.
This therefore was to be secured as the main instance, wherein
the greatest controversy that ever was in the world was debated.
So he expresses it. Gal. ii. 15, 16, " We who are Jews by na-
ture and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might
be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the
law." (2) Hereon there was great opposition made to this
doctrine by the Jews in all places, and in many of them the
minds of multitudes were turned off from the truth (which the
most are generally prone to in this case) and perverted from
the simplicity of the gospel. This greatly affected his holy soul,
and he takes notice of it in most of his Epistles. (3) The weight
of the doctrine itself, with that unwillingness which is in the
minds of men by nature to embrace it, as that which lays the
axe to the root of all spiritual pride, elation of mind, and self-
pleasing whatever, whence innumerable subterfuges have been,
and are sought out to avoid the efficacy of it, and to keep the
souls of men from that universal resignation of themselves to
sovereign grace in Christ, which they have naturally such an
aversion to, did also affect him. (4) He had himself been a
great sinner in the days of his ignorance, by a peculiar oppo-
sition to Christ and the gospel; this he was deeply sensible of;
and therewith of the excellency of the grace of God and the
righteousness of Christ, whereby he was delivered. And men
must have some experience of what he felt in himself as to sin
and grace, before they can well understand his expressions
about them.
5. Hence it was, that in many other places of his writings,
but in this especially, he treats of these things with a greater
earnestness and vehemency of spirit than ordinary. Thus (I)
On the part of Christ whom he would exalt he mentions not
only the knowledge of him, but to vtn^exov trii yvt^cBUi, "the ex-
cellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord," with an
emphasis in every word; and those other redoubled expres-
sions, " all loss for him, that I may win him, that I may be
found in him, that I may know him," all argue the working
of his affections under the conduct of faith and truth to an ac-
quiescence in Christ alone, as all and in all. Somewhat of this
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 411
frame of mind is necessary to them that would believe his doc-
trine. Those who are utter strangers to the one, will never
receive the otlier. (2) In his expression of all other things that
are our own, that are not Christ, whether privileges or duties,
however good, useful, excellent, they may be in themselves,
yet in comparison of Christ and his righteousness, and with
respect to the end of our standing before God, and acceptance
with him, with the same vehemency of spirit he casts contempt
upon them,calUng them axvj3a%a, " dogs' meat" to be left for them
whom he calls "dogs," that is, "evil workers, the concision;"
or the wicked Jews who adhered pertinaciously to the right-
eousness of the law, verse 2. This account of the earnestness
of the Apostle in this argument, and the warmth of his ex-
pressions, I thought meet to give as that which gives light to
the whole of his design.
6. The question being thus stated, the inquiry is what any
person who desires acceptance with God, or a righteousness
whereon he may be justified before him, ought to betake him-
self to. One of the ways proposed he must close with. Either
he must comply with the Apostle in his resolution to reject all
his own righteousness, and to betake himself to the righteous-
ness of God, which is by faith in Christ Jesus alone, or find out
for himself, or get some to find out for him, some exceptions to
the Apostle's conclusion, or some distinctions that may prepare
a reserve for his own works, one way or other in his justifica-
tion before God. Here every one must choose for himself. In
the mean time, we thus argue. If " our own righteousness,"
and the "righteousness which is of God by faith," or that
which is through the faith of Christ Jesus, (namely the right-
eousness which God imputes to us, Rom. iv. 6; or the abundance
of grace and the gift of righteousness thereby, which we receive.
Rom. V. 17,) are opposite and inconsistent in the work of justi-
fication before God, then are we justified by faith alone through
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us. The con-
sequence is plain from the removal of all other ways, causes,
means, and conditions of it, as inconsistent with it. But the
antecedent is expressly the Apostle's; " not my own, but that
of God." Again,
That whereby, and wherewith we are "found in Christ," is
that whereby alone we are justified before God; for to be
"found in Christ," expresses the state of the person that is to
be justified before God: whereto is opposed to be "found in
ourselves." And according to these different states, the judg-
412 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
ment of God passes concerning us. And as for those who are
found in themselves, we know what will be their portion. But
in Christ we are found, by faith alone.
All manner of evasions are made use of by some, to escape
the force of this testimony. It is said in general, ' that no sober
minded man can imagine the Apostle did not desire to be found
in gospel righteousness, or that by his own righteousness he
meant that. For it is that alone can entitle us to the benefits
of Christ's righteousness.' Nollem dictum. (1) The censure
is too severe to be cast on all Protestant writers without excep-
tion, who have expounded this place of the Apostle; and all
others, except some few of late, influenced by the heat of the
controversy wherein they are engaged. (2) If the gospel right-
eousness intended be his own personal righteousness and obe-
dience, there is some want of consideration in affirming, that
he did not desire to be found in it. That wherein we are
found, thereon are we to be judged; to be found in our own
evangelical righteousness before God, is to enter into judgment
with God thereon, which those who understand any thing
aright of God and themselves, will not be free to. And to
make this to be the meaning of his words, 'I desire not to be
found in my own righteousness which is after the law, but I
desire to be found in mine own righteousness which is accord-
ing to the gospel ;' whereas, since they are his own inherent
righteousness, they are both the same, does not seem a proper
interpretation of his words, and it shall be immediately dis-
proved. (3) That our personal gospel righteousness, entitles
us to the benefits of Christ's righteousness, that is, as to our
justification before God, is gratis dictum, not one testimony of
Scripture can be produced that gives the least countenance to
such an assertion. That it is contrary to many express testi-
monies, and inconsistent with the freeness of the grace of God
in our justification, as proposed in the Scripture, has been
proved before. Nor do any of the places which assert the ne-
cessity of obedience and good works in believers, that is, justi-
fied persons, to salvation, any way belong to the proof of this
assertion; or in the least express, or intimate any such thing.
And in particular, the assertion of it is expressly contradictory
to that of the Apostle, Tit. iii. 4, 5. But I forbear, and pro-
ceed to the consideration of the special answers, that are given
to this testimony, especially those of Bellarmine, whereto I
have, as yet, seen nothing added with any pretence of reason
in it.
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 413
1. Some say, ' that by his own righteousness which the Apos-
tle rejects, he intends only his righteousness ix vofiov, or " by the
works of the law." But this was only an outward externa!
righteousness, consisting in the observation of rites and ceremo-
nies, without respect to the inward frame or obedience of the
heart.' But this is an impious imagination. The righteousness
which is by the law, is the righteousness which the law re-
quires, and those works of it, which if a man do, he shall live
in them; for " the doers of the law shall be justified,*' Rom. ii.
16. Neither did God ever give any law of obedience to man,
but what obliged him to love the Lord his God with all his
heart, and all his soul. And it is so far from being true, that
God by the law required an external righteousness only, that
he frequently condemns it as an abomination to him, where it
is alone.
2. Others say, ' that it is the righteousness whatever it be,
which he had during his pharisaism. And although he should
be allowed in that state, to have lived in all good conscience,
instantly to have served God day and night, and to have had
respect as well to the internal as the external works of the law;
yet all these works being before faith, before conversion to God,
may be, and are to be rejected as to any concurrence to our jus-
tification. But works wrought in faith, by the aid of grace,
evangelical works, are of another consideration, and together
with faith, are the condition of justification.'
Ans. 1. That in the matter of our justification the Apostle
opposes evangelical works, not only to the grace of God, but
also to the faith of believers, was proved in the consideration
of the foregoing testimony.
2. He makes no such distinction, as that pretended, namely,
that works are of two sorts; whereof one is to be excluded
from any interest in our justification, but not the other; neither
does he any where else, treating of the same subject, intimate
any such distinction; but on the contrary, declares that use of
all works of obedience in them that believe, which is exclusive
of the supposition of any such distinction, but he directly ex-
presses, in this rejection, his own righteousness, that is, his
personal inherent righteousness whatever it be, and however
it be wrought.
3. He makes a plain distinction of his own twofold estate,
namely, that of his Judaism which he was m before his con-
version, and that which he had by faith in Christ Jesus. In
the first state, he considers the privileges of it, and declares
35*
414 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
what judgment he made concerning them upon the revelation
of Jesus Christ to him; " I counted," Pliil. iii. 7, referring to the
time past, namely, at his first conversion. I considered them
with all the advantages, gain, and reputation, which I had by
them, but rejected them all for Christ, because the esteem of
them and continuance in them as privileges, were inconsistent
with faith in Christ Jesus. Secondly, he proceeds to give an
account of himself and his thoughts, as to his present con-
dition. For it might be supposed, that although he had part-
ed with all his legal privileges for Christ; yet now being united
to him by faith, he had something of his own, wherein he
might rejoice, and on the account whereof he might be ac-
cepted with God, (the thing inquired after) or else he had part-
ed with all for nothing. Wherefore he who had no design to
make any reserves of what he might glory in, plainly declares
what his judgment is concerning all his present righteousness,
and the ways of obedience which he was now engaged in, with
respect to the ends inquired after, ver. S. A7.>.a ^sr'ori'yf xai r^yov-
jua:. The bringing over of what was affirmed before concern-
ing his Judaical privileges into this verse, is an efiect of a very
superficial consideration of the context. For (1) there is a plain
dvljjffts in these words A%%a fiivowyi xao. He could not more
plainly express the heightening of what he had affirmed by a
progress to other things, or the consideration of himself in an-
other state. But moreover, beyond what I have already as-
serted; (2) the change of the time expressed by yj-yrj^iai which
respects what was past, into -^yov^uat, wherein he has respect
only to what was present, not what he had before rejected and
forsaken, makes evident his progress to the consideration of
things of another nature. Wherefore to the rejection of all his
former Judaical privileges, he adds his judgment concerning
his own present personal righteousness. But whereas it might
be objected, that rejecting all both before and after conversion,
he had nothing left to "rejoice" in, to "glory" in, to give him
acceptance with God; he assures us of the contrary, namely,
that he found all these things in Christ, and " the righteousness
of God which is by faith." He is therefore in these words,
" Not having mine own righteousness, which is by the law,"
so far from intending only the righteousness which he had be-
fore his conversion, that he intends it not at all.
The words of Davenant on this passage of the Apostle, being
in my judgment not only sober, but weighty also, I shall tran-
scribe them. " Here the Apostle teaches what is that right-
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 415
eousness, on which we must rely before God, to wit, that
which is apprehended by faith; but this is an imputed right-
eousness. He also shows why it rightfully becomes ours; to
wit, because we are Christ's and are found in Christ. There-
fore, because we are ingrafted into his body, and are united
with him in one person, his righteousness is accounted ours."*
For whereas some begin to interpret our being "in Christ,"
and being "found in him," so as to intend no more but our
profession of the faith of the gospel — the faith of the Catholic
church in all ages concerning the mystical union of Christ and
believers, is not to be blown away with a few empty words
and unproved assertions.
The answer therefore is full and clear to the general excep-
tion, namely, that the Apostle rejects our legal, but not our
evangelical righteousness. For (1) the Apostle rejects, dis-
claims, disowns nothing at all, not the one nor the other abso-
lutely, but in comparison of Christ, and with respect to the
especial end of justification before God, or a righteousness in
his sight. (2) In that sense he rejects all our own righteous-
ness; but our evangelical righteousness, in the sense pleaded
for, is our own, inherent in us, performed by us. (3) Our legal
righteousness, and our evangelical, so far as an inherent right-
eousness is intended, are the same, and the different ends and
use of the same righteousness, is alone intended in that dis-
tinction, so far as it has sense in it. That which in respect of
motives to it, the ends of it, with the especial causes of its ac-
ceptance with God, is evangelical, in respect of its original
prescription, rule, and measure, is legal. When any can
instance any act or duty, any habit or effect of it, which
are not required by that law which enjoins us "to love the
Lord our God, with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our
neighbour as ourselves;" they shall be attended to. (4) The
Apostle in this case rejects all the works of righteousness
which we have done. Tit. iii. 5. But our evangelical right-
eousness consists in the works of righteousness which we do.
(5) He disclaims all that is our own. And if the evangelical
righteousness intended be our own, he sets up another in
opposition to it; and which therefore is not our own, but as it
* Hie docet Apostolus quasnam ilia justitia sit qua nitendum eoram Deo, nimi-
rum quae per fidem apprehenditur, at hcBc imputata est. Causam etiain ostendit cur
jure nostra fiat, nimiruin quia nos Christi sumus et in Christo comperimur; quia
igitur insiti sumus in corpus ejus et coalescimus cum ilio in unam personam, ideo
ejus justitia nostra reputatur. De Justif. Habit, cap. 38.
416 THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED
is imputed to us. And I shall yet add some other reasons
which render this pretence useless, or show the falseness
of it.
1. Where the Apostle does not distinguish or limit what he
speaks of, what ground have we to distinguish or limit his as-
sertions? "Not by works," saith he, sometimes absolutely,
sometimes the " works of righteousness which we have done;"
that is, not by some sort of works, say those who plead the
contrary; but by what warrant? (2) The works which they
pretend to be excluded, as wherein our own righteousness that
is rejected consists, are works wrought without faith, without
the aid of grace: but these are not ^ood works, nor can any
be denominated righteous from them, nor is it any righteous-
ness that consists in them alone. For " without faith it is im-
possible to please God:" and to what purpose should the
Apostle exclude evil works and hypocritical, from our justifi-
cation? Who ever imagined, that any could be justified with
respect to them? There might have been some pretence for
this gloss, had the Apostle said his own works; but whereas
he rejects his own righteousness, to restrain it to such works
as are not righteous, as will denominate none righteous, as are
no righteousness at all, is most absurd. (3) Works wrought
in faith, if applied to our justification, give occasion to, or in-
clude " boasting," more than any others, as being better and
more praiseworthy than they, (4) The Apostle elsewhere
excludes from justification the works that Abraham had done
when he had been a believer many years; and the works of
David when he described the blessedness of a man by the for-
giveness of sins. (5) The state of the question which he han-
dles in his Epistle to the Galatians, was expressly about the
works of them that believed. For he does not dispute against
the Jews, who would not be pressed in the least with his ar-
guments, namely, that if the inheritance were by the law, then
the promise was of none effect; and if righteousness were by
the law, then did Christ die in vain : for these things they
would readily grant. But he speaks to them that were be-
lievers, with respect to those works which they would have
joined with Christ and the gospel, in order to justification. (6)
If this were the mind of the Apostle, that he would exclude
one sort of works, and assert the necessity of another to the
same end, why did he not once say so, especially considering
how necessary it was that so.**he should do, to answer those
objections against his doctrine which he himself takes notice
IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL, ETC. 417
of, and returns answer to on other grounds, without the least
intimation of any such distinction ?
Bellarmine considers this testimony in three places, Lib. 1.
cap. IS. Lib. 1. cap. 19. Lib. 5. cap. 5. De Justificat. And he
returns three answers to it, which contain the substance of all
that is pleaded by others to the same purpose. (1) He saith,
" That the righteousness which is by the law, and which is op-
posed to the righteousness which is by faith, is not the right-
eousness written in the law, or which the law requires, but a
righteousness wrought without the aid of grace, by the know-
ledge of the law alone. (2) That the righteousness which is by
the faith of Christ, are opera nostra just a facta ex Jide, our
own righteous works wrought in faith, which others call our
evangelical works. (3) That it is blasphemous to call the du-
ties of inherent righteousness <^r^^i,a.v xai, cfxvSaxa'Moss and dung."
But he labours in the tire with all his sophistry. For as to the
first, (1) That by the righteousness which is by the law, the
righteousness which the law requires, is not intended, is a bold
assertion, and expressly contradictory to the Apostle, Rom. ix.
31 ; X. 5. In both places he declares the righteousness of the law
to be the righteousness that the law requires. (2) The works
which he excludes, he calls the " works of righteousness that we
have done," Tit. iii. 5, which are the works that the law requires.
To the second, I say, ( 1 ) that the substance of it is, that the Apos-
tle should profess " I desire to be found in Christ, not having my
own righteousness, but having my own righteousness;" for
evangelical inherent righteousness was properly his own. And I
am sorry that some should apprehend that the Apostle in these
words desired to be found in his own righteousness in the pre-
sence of God, in order to his justification. For nothing can be
more contrary, not only to the perpetual tenor and design of all
his discourses, on this subject, but also to the testimony of all
other holy men in the Scripture, to the same purpose,as we have
proved before. And I suppose there are very {q\v true believ-
ers at present, whom they will find to comply and join with
them in this desire of being found in their own personal evan-
gelical righteousness, or the works of righteousness which they
have done, in their trial before God, as to their justification.
We should do well to read our own hearts, as well as the books
of others in this matter. (2) The righteousness which is of God
by faith, is not our own obedience or righteousness, but that
which is opposed to it; that which God imputes to us, Rom.
iv. 6; that which we receive by way of gift, Rom. v. 17.
418 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JUSTIFICATION BY THE
(3) That by the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ
Jesus our own inherent righteousness is not intended, is evident
from hence, that the Apostle excludes all his own righteous-
ness, as, and when he was found in Christ, that is, whatever he
had done as a believer. And if there be not an opposition in
these words, between a righteousness that is our own, and that
which is not our own, I know not in what words it can be ex-
pressed. To the third I say, (1) the Apostle does not, nor do
we say that he does, call our inherent righteousness " dung,"
but only that he " accounts" it so. (2) He does not account it
so absolutely, which he is most remote from, but only in com-
parison with Christ. (3) He does not esteem it so in itself, but
only as to his trust in it, with respect to one especial end,
namely, our justification before God. (4) The prophet Isaiah
in the same respect, terms all our righteousnesses " filthy rags,"
Isa. Ixiv. 6. And any ij3 is an expression of as much contempt,
as axv6a%.a.
5. Some say all works are excluded as meritorious of grace,
life, and salvation, but not as the condition of our justification
before God. But (1) whatever the Apostle excludes, he does
it absolutely, and in all respects, because he sets up some-
thing else in opposition to it. (2) There is no ground left for
any such distinction in this place: for all that the Apostle re-
quires to our justification is, (1) That we be found in Christ,
not in ourselves. (2) That we have the righteousness of God,
not our own. (3) That we be made partakers of this righteous-
ness by faith, which is the substance of what we plead for.
CHAPTER XIX.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION, BY THE IMPU-
TATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. PERSONAL HOLINESS
AND OBEDIENCE NOT OBSTRUCTED, BUT FURTHERED BY IT.
That which remains to put an issue to this discourse, is the
consideration of some things, that in general are laid in objec-
tion against the truth pleaded for. Many things of that nature
we have occasionally met with, and already removed. Yea, the
principal of those which at present are most insisted on. The
IMPUTATION OP Christ's righteousness. 419
testimonies of Scripture urged by those of the Roman Church
for justification by works, have all of them so fully and fre-
quently been answered by Protestant divines, that it is alto-
gether needless to insist again upon them, unless they had re-
ceived some new enforcement, which of late they have not
done. That which for the most part we have now to do with,
are rather sophistical cavils from supposed absurd consequen-
ces, than real theological arguments. And some of those who
would walk with most wariness between the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ and justification by our own works,
either are in such a slippery place, that they seem sometimes
to be on the one side, sometimes on the other, or else to express
themselves with so much caution that it is very difficult to ap-
prehend their minds. I shall not therefore for the future dare to
say, that this or that is any man's opinion, though it appear to
me so to be, as clear and evident as words can express it; but
that this or that opinion, let it be maintained by whom it will,
I approve or disapprove, this I shall dare to say. And I will
say also, that the declination that has been from the common
doctrine of justification before God, on the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, daily proceeds towards a direct asser-
tion of justification by works. Nor indeed has it where to rest,
until it comes to that bottom. And this is more clearly seen
in the objections which they make against the truth, than in
what they plead in defence of their own opinions. For herein
they speak as yet warily, and with a pretence of accuracy in
avoiding extremes: but in the other, or their objections, they
make use of none but what are easily resolved into a supposi-
tion of justification by works in the grossest sense of it. To
insist on all particulars were endless, and as was said, most of
those of any importance have already occasionally been spoken
to. There are therefore only two things which are generally
pleaded by all sorts of persons. Papists, Socinians, and others,
with whom here we have to do, that I shall take notice of. The •
''first and fountain of all others is, that the doctrine of justifica-
tion by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ renders
our personal righteousness needless, and overthrows all neces-
sity of a holy life. The other is, that the Apostle James in his
epistle, plainly ascribes our justification to works, and what he
affirms there, is inconsistent with that sense of those many,
other testimonies of Scripture which we plead for.
For the first of these, although those who oppose the truth
we contend for, proceed on various d liferent and contradictory
420 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JUSTIFICATION BY THE
principles among themselves as to what they exalt in opposi-
tion to it, yet do they all agree in a vehement urging of it. For
those of the church of Rome who renewed this charge, invent-
ed of old by others, it must be acknowledged by all sober men,
are guilty, in the management of it, of an open calumny. For
the wisest of them and those of whom it is hard to conceive,
but that they knew the contrary, as Bellarmine, Vasquez,
Suarez, openly aver that Protestant writers deny all inherent
righteousness; (Bellarmine excepts Bucer and Chemnitius;)
that they maintain that men may be saved, although they live
in all manner of sin, that there is no more required of them,
but that they believe that their sins are forgiven, and that
whilst they do so, although they give themselves up to the
most sensual vices and abominations, they may be assured of
their salvation.
Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum.
So will men out of a perverse zeal to promote their own in-
terest in the religion they profess, wilfully give up themselves
unto the worst of evils, such as false accusation and open cal-
umny, and of no other nature are these assertions, which none
of the writings or preachings of those who are so charged,
ever gave the least countenance to. Whether the forging and
promulgation of such impudent falsehoods, be an expedient to
obtain justification by works in the sight of God, ihey who
continue in them had best consider. For my part I say again,
as I suppose I have said already, that it is all one to me what
religion men are of, who can justify themselves in such courses
and proceedings. And for those among ourselves who are
pleased to make use of this objection, they either know what
the doctrine is which they would oppose, or they do not. If
they do not, the wise man tells them, " that he who answereth
a matter before he hear it, it is folly and shame unto him." If
• they do understand it, it is evident that they use not sincerity,
but artifices, and false pretences for advantage, in their hand-
ling of sacred things, which is scandalous to religion. Socinus
fiercely manages this charge against the doctrine of the re- ?
formed churches; De servat. par. 4. cap. 1. And he made it i
the foundation whereon, and the reason why, he opposes the
.doctrine of the imputation of the satisfaction of Christ, if any
'such satisfaction should be allowed, which yet he peremptorily ^
denies. And he has written a treatise to the same purpose
defended by Schlictingius against Meisnerus. And he takes
IMPUTATION OF CHRISt's RIGHTEOUSNESS. 421
the same honest course herein, that others did before him. For
he charges it on the divines of the Protestant churches, that
they taught that God justifieth the ungodly, not only those that
are so, and whilst they are so, but although they continue so;
that they required no inherent righteousness or holiness in any,
nor could do so on their principles, seeing the imputed right-
eousness of Christ is sufficient for them, although they live in
sin, are not washed nor cleansed, nor give up themselves to
the ways of duty and obedience to God whereby he may be
pleased, and so bring in libertinism and Antinomianism into
the church. And he thinks it a sufficient confutation of this
doctrine to allege against it that " neither fornicators, nor idol-
aters, nor adulterers, &c. shall inherit the kingdom of God."
And these are some of those v/ays which have rendered the
management of controversies in religion scandalous and abom-
inable, such as no wise or good man will meddle with, unless
compelled for the necessary service of the church. For these
things are openly false, and made use of with a shameful dis-
honesty to promote a corrupt design and end. When I find
men at this kind of work, I have very little concern in what
they say afterwards, be it true or false. Their rule and mea-
sure is what serves their own end, or what may promote the
design and interest wherein they are engaged, be it right or
wrong. And as for this man, there is not any article in reli-
gion, (the principal whereof are rejected by him) on whose ac-
count he with more confidence adjudges us to eternal ruin than
this of the satisfaction of Christ and the imputation of it to them
that believe. So much darkness is there remaining on the
minds of the most of men: so many inveterate prejudices on
various occasions are they pestered with, especially if not un-
der the conduct of the same enlightening Spirit, that some will
confidently condemn others to eternal flames, for those things
whereon they place, on infallible grounds, their hopes of eter-
nal blessedness, and know that they love God and live to him
on their account. But this wretched advantage of condemn-
ing all those to hell who dissent from them, is greedily laid
hold of by all sorts of persons. For they thereby secretly se-
cure their own whole party 'in persuasion of eternal salvation,
be they otherwise what they will. For if the want of that
faith which they profess, will certainly damn men whatever
else they be, and how good soever their lives be, many will
easily suffer themselves to be deceived with a foolish sophism,
that then that faith which they profess will assuredly save
36
422 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JUSTIFICATION BY THE
them, be their lives what they please, considering how it falls
in with their inclinations. And hereby they may happen also
to frighten poor simple people into a compliance with them,
whilst they peremptorily denounce damnation against them
unless they do so. And none for the most part are more fierce
in the denunciation of the condemnatory sentence against
others for not believing as they do, than those who so live,
that if there be any truth in the Scripture, it is not possible
they should be saved themselves. For my part I believe that
as to Christians in outward profession, all unregenerate unbe-
lievers, who obey not the gospel shall be damned, be they of
what religion they will, and none else; for all that are born
again, truly believe and obey the gospel, shall be saved, be
they of what religion they will, as to the differences that are
at this day among Christians. That way wherein these things
are most effectually promoted, is in the first place to be em-
braced by every one that takes care of his own salvation. If
they are in any way or church obstructed, that church or way
is so far as it obstructs them to be forsaken. And if there be
any way of profession or any visible church state wherein any
thing or things absolutely destructive of or inconsistent with
these things are made necessary to the professors of it, in that
way, and by virtue of it, no salvation is to be obtained. In
other things every man is to walk according to the light of his
own mind, for -' whatever is not of faith is sin." But I return
from this digression occasioned by the fierceness of him with
whom we have to do.
For the objection itself, that has fallen under so perverse a
management, so far as it has any pretence of sobriety in it, is
this and no other: — " If God justify the ungodly merely by his
grace through faith in Christ Jesus, so that works of obedience
are not antecedently necessary to justification before God, nor
are any part of that righteousness whereon any are so justified,
then are they no way necessary, but men may be justified and
saved without them." For it is said that there is no connexion
between faith for justification as by us asserted, and the neces-
sity of holiness, righteousness or obedience, but that we are by
grace set at liberty to live as we li^t', yea in all manner of sin,
and yet be secured of salvation. For if we are made righteous
with the righteousness of another, we have no need of any
righteousness of our own. And it were well if many of those
%vho make use of this plea, would endeavour by some other
way also to evidence their esteem of these things; for to dis-
IMPUTATION OF CHUIST's RIGHTEOUSNESS. 423
pute for the necessity of holiness, and Uve in the neglect of it.
is uncomely.
I shall be brief in the answer that here shall be returned to
this objection, for indeed it is snfficiently answered or obviated
in what has been before discoursed concerning the nature of
that faith whereby we are justified, and the continuation of the
moral law in its force, as a rule of obedience to all believers.
An unprejudiced consideration of what has been proposed on
these heads will evidently manifest the iniquity of this charge,
and how not the least countenance is given to it by the doc-
trine pleaded for. Besides, I must acquaint the reader that
some while since I have published an entire discourse concern-
ing the nature and necessity of gospel holiness, with the grounds
and reasons thereof in compliance with the doctrine of justifi-
tion that has now been declared. Nor do I see it necessary to
add any thing thereto, nor do I doubt, but that the perusal of
it will abundantly detect the vanity of this charge. (Dispensa-
tion of the Holy Spirit, book 5.) Some few things may be
spoken on the present occasion.
1. It is not pleaded that all who profess or have in former
ages professed this doctrine, have exemplified it in a holy and
fruitful conversation. Many, it is to be feared, have been found
amongst them who have lived and died in sin. Neither do I
know but that some have abiVsed:this doctrine to countenance
themselves in their sins, and neglect of duty. The best of holy
things or truths cannot be secured from abuse, so long as the
sophistry of the old serpent has an influence on the lusts and
depraved minds of men. So was it with them of old who
" turned the grace of God into lasciviousness;" or from the doc-
trine of it countenanced themselves in i their ungodly deeds.
Even from the beginning the whole doctrine of the gospel with
the grace of God declared therein, was so abused. Neither
were all that made profession of it, immediately rendered lioly
and righteous thereby. Many from the first, so walked as to
make it evident that their belly was their god, and their end
destruction. It is one thing to have only the conviction of
truth in our minds, another to have the power of it in our
hearts. The former will produce an outward profession, the
latter alone eftect an inv/ard renovation of our souls. However
I must add three things to this concession.
1. I am not satisfied that any of those who at present oppose
this doctritte, do in holiness or righteousness, in the exercise of
faith, love, zeal, self-denial, and all other Christian graces, sur-
424 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JUSTIFICATION BY THE
pass those who in the last ages, both in this and other nations,
firmly adhered to it, and who constantly testified to that effec-
tual influence which it had upon their walking before God: nor
do I know that any can be named amongst us in the former
ages, who were eminent in holiness, and many such there were,
who did not cordially assent to that imputation of the righteous-
ness of Christ which we plead for. I doubt not in the least,
but that many who greatly diff'er from others in the explication
of this doctrine, may be and are eminently holy, at least sin-
cerely so, which is as much as the best can pretend to. But it
is not comely to find some others who give very little evidence
of their diligent following after that " holiness, without which
no man shall see God," vehemently declaiming against that
doctrine as destructive of holiness, which was so fruitful in it,
in former days,
2. It does not appear as yet in general, that an attempt to
introduce a doctrine contrary to it has had any great success in
the reformation of the lives of men. Nor has personal right-
eousness or holiness as yet much thrived under the conduct of
it, as to what may be observed. It will be time enough to seek
comitenance to it by declaiming against that which has formerly
had better eflects, when it has a little more commended itself
by its fruits.
3. It were not amiss, if this part of the controversy might
amongst us all, be issued in the advice of the Apostle James,
chap. ii. IS. " Show me thy faith by thy works, and I will
show thee my faith by my works." Let us all labour that fruits
may thus far determine of doctrines, as to their use, to the in-
terest of righteousness and holiness. For that faith which does
not evidence itself by works, that has not this ivbu^iv, this index,
which James calls for, whereby it may be found out and ex-
amined, is of no use nor consideration herein. Secondly, the
same objection was from the beginning laid against the doc-
trine of the Apostle Paul, the same charge was managed
against it, which sufficiently argues, that it is the same doc-
trine which is now assaulted with it. This he himself more
than once takes notice of, Rom. iii. 31: '•' Do we make void the
law through faith?" It is an objection that he anticipates
against his doctrine of the free justification of sinners, through
faith in the blood of Christ. And the substance of the charge
included in these words is, that he destroyed the law, took off
all obligation to obedience, and brought in Antinomianism. So
again, Rom. vi. 1. " What shall we say then.'* shall we con-
I
IMPUTATION OF CHRIST's RIGHTEOUSNESS, 425
linue ill sin, that grace may abound?" Some thought this the
natural and genuine consequence of what he had largely dis-
coursed concerning justification which he had now fully closed;
and some think so still. If what he taught concerning the grace
of God in our justification be true, it will not only follow, that
there will be no need of any relinquishment of sin on our part,
but also a continuance in it must needs tend to the exaltation
of that grace, which he had so extolled. The same objection
he repeats again, verse 15: " What then, shall we sin because
we are not under the law but under grace?" And in sundry
other places he obviates the same objection, where he does not
absolutely suppose it, especially Ephes. ii. 9, 10. We have
therefore no reason to be surprised with, nor much to be moved
at this objection and charge, for it is no other but what was in-
sinuated or managed against the doctrine of the Apostle him-
self, whatever enforcements are now given it by subtlety of
arguing or rhetorical exaggerations. However, it is evident,
that there are naturally in the minds of men efficacious preju-
dices against this part of the mystery of the gospel which began
betimes to manifest themselves, and ceased not until they had
corrupted the whole doctrine of the church herein. And it were
no hard matter to discover the principal of them, were that our
present business; however it has in part been done before.
3. It is granted that this doctrine both singly by itself, or in
conjunction with whatever else concerns the grace of God by
Christ Jesus, is liable to abuse by them in whom darkness and
the love of sin are predominant. For hence from the very be-
ginning of our religion, some fancied to themselves that a bare
assent to the gospel, was that faith whereby they should be
saved, and that they might be so, however they continued to
live in sin, and a neglect of all duties of obedience. This is evi-
dent from the epistles of John, James, and Jude, in an especial
manner. Against this pernicious evil we can give no relief,
whilst men will " love darkness more than light, because their
deeds are evil." And it would be a fond imagination in any
to think, that their modellings of this doctrine after this man-
ner, will prevent future abuse. If they will, it is by rendering
it no part of the gospel: for that which is so was ever liable to
be abused by such persons as we speak of.
These general observations being premised which are suffi-
cient of themselves, to discard this objection from any place in
the minds of sober men, I shall onlv add the consideration of
36*
426 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JTSTIFICATION BY THE
what answers the Apostle Paul returns to it, with a brief appli-
cation of them to our purpose.
The objection made to the Apostle was, that he made void
the law, that he rendered good works needless, and that on the
supposition of his doctrine, men might live in sin, to the ad-
vancement of grace. And as to his sense hereof, we may ob-
serve,
1. That he never returns that answer to it, no not once,
which some think is the only answer, whereby it may be satis-
fied and removed: namely, the necessity of our own personal
righteousness and obedience or works in order to our justifica-
tion before God. For that by faith without works, he under-
stands faith and works, is an unreasonable supposition. If any
yet pretend that he has given any such answer, let them pro-
duce it; as yet it has not been made to appear. And is it not
strange that if this indeed were his doctrine, arid the contrary
a mistake of it, (namely, that our personal righteousness, holi-
ness, and works had an influence upon our justification, and
were in any sort our righteousness before God therein,) that he
who in an eminent manner every where presses the necessity
of them, and shows their true nature and use, both in general and
in particular duties of all sorts, above any of the writers of the
New Testament, should not make use of this truth in answer
to an objection wherein he was charged to render them all
needless and useless? His doctrine was urged with this objec-
tion as he himself acknowledged, and on the account of it re-
jected by many, Rom. x. 3, 4. Gal. ii. 3. He saw and knew
that the corrupt lusts and depraved affections of the minds of
many would supply them with subtle arguings against it. Yea
he foresaw by the Holy Spirit, as appears in many places of
his writings, that it would be perverted and abused. And sure-
ly it was highly incumbent on him to obviate, as far as in him
lay, these evils, and so to state his doctrine upon this objection,
that no countenance might ever be given to it. And is it not
strange that he should not on this occasion, once at least, some-
where or other, give an intimation, that although he rejected
the works of the law, yet he maintained the necessity of evan-
gelical works, in order to our justification before God as the
condition of it, or that whereby we are justified according to
the gospel? If this were indeed his doctrine, and that which
would so easily solve this difficulty, and answer this objection,
as both of them are by some pretended, certainly neither his
IMPUTATION OF CHRIST's RIGHTEOUSNESS. 427
wisdom nor his care of the church under the conduct of the in-
fallible Spirit would have suffered him to omit this reply, were
it consistent with the truth which he had delivered. But he is
so far from any such plea, that when the most unavoidable
occasion was administered to it, he not only waves any mention
of it, but in its stead affirms that which plainly evidences that
he allowed not of it. See Eph. ii. 9, 10. Having positively
excluded works from our justification, " not of works lest any
man should boast," it being natural thereon to inquire, to what
end do works serve, or is there any necessity of them? instead
of a distinction of works legal and evangelical in order to our
justification, he asserts the necessity of the latter on other
grounds, reasons, and motives, manifesting that they were those
in particular which he excluded, as we have seen in the consi-
deration of the place. Wherefore that we may not forsake his
pattern and example in the same cause, seeing he was wiser
and holier, knew more of the mind of God, and had more zeal
for personal righteousness and holiness in the church than we
all, if we are pressed a thousand times with this objection we
shall never seek to deliver ourselves from it, by answering that
we allow these things to be the condition, or causes of our jus-
tification, or the matter of our righteousness before God, see-
ing he would not so do.
Secondly, we may observe, that in his answer to this objec-
tion, whether expressly mentioned or tacitly obviated, he in-
sists not any where upon the common principle of moral duties,
but on those motives and reasons of holiness, obedience, good
works alone, which are peculiar to believers. For the question
was not, whether all mankind v/ere obliged to obedience to
God and the duties thereof by the moral law; but whether
there were an obligation from the gospel upon believers to
righteousness, holiness and good works, such as was suited to
affect and constrain their minds to them. Nor will we admit
of any other state of the question but this only; whether upon
the supposition of our gratuitous justification through the im-
putation of the righteousness of Christ, there are, in the gospel,
grounds, reasons, and motives making necessary, and effica-
ciously influencing the minds of believers to obedience and
good works. For those who are not believers, we have nothing
to do with them in this matter, nor do we plead that evangeli-
cal grounds and motives are suited or effectual to work them
to obedience; yea, we know the contrary, and that they are
apt both to despise them and abuse them. See 1 Cor, i. 23, 24.
428 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JUSTIFICATION BY THE
2 Cor. iv. 4. Such persons are under the law, and there we
leave them to the authority of God in the moral law. But
that the Apostle confines his inquiry to believers, is evident in
every place wherein he makes mention of it, Rom. vi. 2, 3.
" How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ," &c. Eph. ii. 10. " For we are the workmanship of
God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Wherefore
we shall not at all contend what cogency to duties of holiness,
there is in gospel motives and reasons to the minds of unbe-
lievers, whatever may be the truth in that case; but what is
their power, force and efficacy towards them that truly believe.
Thirdly, The answers which the Apostle returns positively
to this objection wherein he declares the necessity, nature, ends
and use of evangelical righteousness, and good works, are
large, and many comprehensive of a great part of the doctrine
of the gospel. I shall only mention the heads of some of them,
which are the same that we plead in the vindication of the
same truth.
1. He pleads the ordination of God; ''God hath before or-
dained that we should walk in them;" Eph. ii. 10. God has
designed in the disposal of the order of the causes of salvation,
that those who believe in Christ should " live in, walk in,
abound in" good works and all duties of obedience to God.
To this end are precepts, directions, motives and encourage-
ments every where multiplied in the Scripture. Wherefore we
say that good works, and that as they include the gradual pro-
gressive renovation of our natures, our growth and increase in
grace, with fruitfulness in our lives, are necessary from the or-
dination of God, from his will and command. And what need
there any further dispute about the necessity of good works
among them that know what it is to believe, or what respect
there is in the souls and consciences of believers to the com-
mands of God?
But what force, say some, is in this command or ordination
of God, when notwithstanding it, and if we do not apply our-
selves to obedience, we shall be justified by the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, and so may be saved without them?
I say (1) as was before observed, that it is believers alone con-
cerning whom this inquiry is made, and there is none of them
but will judge this a most unreasonable and senseless objection,
as that which arises from an utter ignorance of their state and
relation to God. To suppose that the minds of believers are
I3IPUTATI0N OF CHRIST's RIGHTEOUSNESS. 429
not as much and effectually influenced with the authority and
commands of God to duty and obedience, as if they were all
given in order to their justification, is to consider neither what
faith is, nor what it is to be a believer, nor what is the relation
that we stand in to God by faith in Christ Jesus, nor what
are the arguments or motives wherewith the minds of such
persons are principally affected and constrained. This is the
answer which the Apostle gives at large to this exception,
Rom. vi, 2, 3. (2) The whole fallacy of this exception is (1)
In separating the things that God has made inseparable; that
is, our justification and our sanctification. To suppose that the
one of these may be without the other, is to overthrow the
whole gospel. (2) In confounding those things that are dis-
tinct, namely, justification and eternal actual salvation; the
respect of works and obedience being not the same to them
both, as has been declared. Wherefore this imagination that
the commands of God to duty, however given, and to what
ends soever, are not equally obligatory on the consciences of
believers, as if they were all given in order to their justification
before God, is an absurd figment, and which all of them who
truly believe, do reject. Yea they have a greater power upon
them, than they could have, if the duties required in them were
in order to their justification, and so were antecedent thereto.
For thereby they must be supposed to have their efficacy upon
them before they truly believe. For to say that a man may be a
true believer, or truly believe, in answer to the commands of
the gospel, and not be thereon in the same instant of time abso-
lutely justified, is not to dispute about any point of religion, but
plainly to deny the whole truth of the gospel. But it is faith
alone that gives power and efficacy to gospel commands, effec-
tually to influence the soul to obedience. Wherefore this obli-
gation is more powerfully constraining, as they are given to
those that are justified, than if they were given them in order
to their justification.
Secondly, The Apostle answers, as we do also, " Do we then
make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we estab-
lish the law." For although the law is principally established
in and by the obedience and sufierings of Christ, Rom. viii.
3, 4; X. 3, 4; yet is it not, by the doctrine of faith and the im-
putation of the righteousness of Christ to the justification of
life, made void as to believers. Neither of these exempts them
from that obligation to universal obedience, which is prescribed
in the law. They are still obliged by virtue thereof " to love
430 OBJECTIONS AGAINST JUSTIFICATION BV THE
the Lord their God with all their hearts, and their neighbours
as themselves." They are indeed freed from the law, and all
its commands to duty as it abides in its first consideration, "do
this and live," the opposite whereto, is "cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them."
For he th^ is under the obligation of the law in order to jus-
tification and life, falls inevitably under the curse of it, upon
the supposition of any one transgression. But we are made
free to give obedience to it, on gospel motives, and for gospel
ends, as the Apostle declares at large, Rom. vi. And the obli-
gation of it is such to all believers, that the least transgression
of it has the nature of sin. But are they hereon bound over
by the law to everlasting punishment, or, as some phrase it,
will God damn them that transgress the law, without which all
this is nothing? I ask again what they think hereof; and upon
a supposition that he will do so, what they further think will
become of themselves? For my part, I say no; even as the
Apostle saith, " there is no condemnation to them that are in
Christ Jesus." Where then, they will say, is the necessity of
obedience from the obligation of the law, if God v/ill not damn
them that transgress it? And I say, it were well if some men
understood what they say in these things, or would learn, for
a while at least, to hold their peace. The law equally requires
obedience in all instances of duty, if it require any at all. As
to its obligatory power, it is capable neither of dispensation nor
relaxation, so long as the essential differences of good and evil
remain. If then none can be obliged to duty by virtue of its
commands, but that they must on every transgression fall under
its curse, either it obliges no one at all, or no one can be saved.
But although we are freed from the curse and condemning
power of the law by him who has made an end of sin and
brought in everlasting righteousness, yet whilst we are viatores
in order to the accomplishment of God's design for the restora-
tion of his image in us, we are obliged to endeavour after all
that holiness and righteousness which the law requires of us.
Thirdly, The Apostle answers this objection, by discovering
the necessary relation that faith has, to the death of Christ, the
grace of God, with the nature of sanctification, excellency, use,
and advantage of gospel holiness, and the end of it in God's
appointment. This he does at large in the whole sixth chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, and that with this immediate de-
sign, to show the consistency of justification by faith alone,
with the necessity of personal righteousness and holiness. The
IMPUTATION OF CHRISt's RIGHTEOUSNESS. 431
due pleading of these things would require a just and full ex-
position of that chapter wherein the Apostle has comprised the
chief springs and reasons of evangelical obedience. I shall only
say, that those to whom the reasons of it and motives to it,
therein expressed, which are all consistent with the doctrine of
justification by the impiUation of the righteousness of Christ,
are not effectual to their own personal obedience, and do not
demonstrate an indispensable necessity of it, are so unacquainted
with the gospel, the nature of faith, the genius and incUnation
of the new creature (for, let men scoff on whilst they please,
" he that is in Christ Jesus is a new creature") with the con-
straining efficacy of the grace of God, and love of Christ, and
with the economy of God in the disposition of the causes and
means of our salvation, that I shall never trouble myself to
contend with them about these things.
Sundry other considerations I thought to have added to the
same purpose; and to have showed (1) That to prove the ne-
cessity of inherent righteousness and holiness, we make use of
the arguments which are suggested to us in the Scripture. (2)
That we make use of all of them in the sense wherein, and to
the ends for which they are urged therein, in perfect consist-
ency with what we teach concerning justification. (3) That
all the pretended arguments or motives for and to evangelical
holiness which are inconsistent with the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, do indeed obstruct and overturn it. (4)
That the holiness which we make necessary to the salvation
of them that believe, is of a more excellent, sublime and heav-
enly nature in its causes, essence, operations, and effects, than
what is allowed or believed by the most of those by whom
the doctrine of justification is opposed. (5) That the holiness
and righteousness which is pleaded for by the Socinians and
those that follow them, in nothing exceeds the " righteousness
of the Scribes and Pharisees," nor upon their principles can
any man go beyond them. But whereas this discourse has
already much exceeded my first intention, and as I said before,
I have already at large treated on the doctrine of the nature
and necessity of evangelical holiness, I shall at present omit
the further handling of these things and acquiesce in the an-
swers given by the Apostle to this objection.
432 THE DOCTRINK OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
CHAPTER XX.
THE DOCTRINK OF THE APOSTLE JAMES, CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS,
ITS AGREEMENT WITH THAT OF PAUL.
The seeming difference that is between the Apostles Paul and
James in what they teach concerning faith, works, and justifi-
cation, requires our consideration of it. For many take ad-
vantage from some words and expressions used by the latter,
directly to oppose the doctrine fully and plainly declared by
the former. But whatever is of that nature pretended has
been so satisfactorily already answered and removed by others,
that there is no great need to treat of it again. And although
I suppose that there will not be an end of contending and
writing in these causes, whilst " we know but in part, and
prophesy but in part," yet I must say, that, in my judgment,
the usual solution of this apparent difficulty, securing the
doctrine of justification by faith through the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ from any concernment or contradiction
in the discourse of James, (chap. ii. 14, to the end,) has not
been in the least impeached, nor has liad any new difficulty
put upon it in some late discourses to that purpose. I should
therefore utterly forbear to speak any thing hereof, but that I
suppose it will be expected in a discourse of this nature, and
hope that I also may contribute some light to the clearing and
vindication of the truth. To this purpose it may be observed,
that (1) it is taken for granted on all hands, that there is no
real repugnancy or contradiction between what is delivered
by these two Apostles. For if that were so, the writings of
one of them must be falsely ascribed to him whose name they
bear, and uncanonica],as the authority of the Epistle of James
has been by some both of old and of late highly, but rashly
questioned. Wherefore their words are certainly capable of a
just reconciliation. That we cannot attain thereto, or that we
do not agree therein, is from the darkness of our own minds,
the weakness of our understandings, and with too many, from
the power of prejudices.
2. It is taken also for granted on all other occasions, that
when there is an appearance of repugnancy or contradiction
in any places of Scripture, if some, or any of them, do treat
directly, designedly, and largely about the matter concerning
CONCERNING FAITH AND AVORKS. 433
which there is a seeming repugnancy or contradiction, and
others, or any other speak of the same things only occasion-
ally, transiently, in order to other ends, the truth is to be learn-
ed, stated and fixed from the former places. Or the interpre-
tation of those places where any truth is mentioned only occa-
sionally with reference to other things or ends, is, as to that
truth, to be taken from and accommodated to those other places
wherein it is the design and purpose of the holy penman to
declare it for its own sake, and to guide the faith of the church
therein. And there is not a more rational and natural rule of
the interpretation of Scripture among all those which are by
common consent agreed upon.
3. According to this rule, it is unquestionable that the doc-
trine of justification before God is to be learned from the writ-
ings of the Apostle Paul, and from them, is light to be taken in
all other places of Scripture where it is occasionally mentioned.
Especially it is so, considering how exactly this doctrine repre-
presents the whole scope of the Scripture, and is witnessed to
by particular testimonies, occasionally given to the same truth,
without number. For it must be acknowledged that he wrote
of this subject of our justification before God, on purpose to
declare it for its own sake, and its use in the church, and thajt
he does it fully, largely and frequently, in a constant hatniony
of expressions. And he owns those reasons that pressed him
to fulness, and accuracy herein: (1) The importance of the doc-
trine itself. This he declares to be such, that thereon our sal-
vation immediately depends; and that it was the hinge where-
on the whole doctrine of the gospel turned, — Jirticulus stan-
tis aut cadentis Ecclesix, Gal. ii. 16, 21; v. 4, 5. (2) The
plausible and dangerous opposition, that was then made to it.
This was so managed, and that with such specious pretences,
that very many were prevailed on, and turned from the truth
by it, as it was with the Galatians, and many detained from the
faith of the gospel out of a dislike to it, Rom. x. 3, 4. What
care and diligence this requires in the declaration of any truth
is sufficiently known to them, who are acquainted with these
things ; what zeal, care and circumspection it stirred up the
Apostle to, is manifest in all his writings. (3) The abuse which
the corrupt nature of man is apt to put upon this doctrine of
grace, and which some did actually pervert it to. This also
he takes notice of, and thoroughly vindicates it from giving
the least countenance to such wrestings and impositions. Cer-
tainly, never was there a greater necessity incumbent on any
37
434 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
person fully and plainly to teach and declare a doctrine of
truth, than was on him at that time in his circumstances, con-
sidering the place and duty that he was called to. And no
reason can be imagined why we should not principally and in
the first place learn the truth herein, from his declaration and
vindication of it, if withal we do indeed believe that he was
divinely inspired, and divinely guided to reveal the truth, for
the information of the church.
As to what is delivered by the Apostle James, so far as our
justification is included therein, things are quite otherwise. He
does not undertake to declare the doctrine of our justification
before God, but having another design in hand, as we shall see
immediately, he vindicates it from the abuse that some in those
days had put it to, as other doctrines of the grace of God,
which they turned into licentiousness. Wherefore it is from
the writings of the Apostle Paul, that we are principally to
learn the truth in this matter, and to what is by him plainly
declared is the interpretation of other places to be accommo-
dated.
4. Some of late are not of this mind. They contend earnestly,
that Paul is to be interpreted by James, and not on the con-
trary. And to this end they tell us that the writings of Paul
are obscure, that sundry of the ancients take notice thereof,
that many take occasion of errors from them, with sundry
things of a like nature, indeed scandalous to the Christian reli-
gion'; and that James writing after him, is presumed to give
an interpretation to his sayings, which are therefore to be ex-
pounded and understood according to that interpretation. I
answer, (1) As to the vindication of the writings of Paul, which
begin now to be frequently reflected on with much severity,
(which is one effect of the secret prevalency of the atheism of
these days) as there is no need of it, so it is designed for a more
proper place. Only I know not how any that can pretend to
the least acquaintance with antiquity can plead a passage out
of Irenaeus wherein he was evidently himself mistaken, or a
rash word of Origen, or the like, in derogation from the perspi-
cuity of the writings of this Apostle, when they cannot but
know how easy it were to overwhelm them with testimonies
to the contrary from all the famous writers of the church in
several ages. For instance, Chrysostom in forty places gives
an account why some men understood not Paul's writings,
which in themselves were so gloriously evident and perspicu-
ous. I shall refer them only to the preface to his Exposition of
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS, 435
his epistles, of which kind they will be directed to more in due
season. But Paul needs not the testimony of men, nor of the
whole church together, whose safety and security it is to be
built on that doctrine which he taught. In the mean time it
would not be unpleasant to consider (but that the perverseness
of the minds of men is .rather a real occasion of sorrow) how
those who have the same design do agree in their conceptions
about his writings; for some will have it, that if not all, yet the
most of his epistles were written against the Gnostics, and
in the confutation of their error; others, that the Gnostics
took the occasion of their errors from his writings. So bold
will men make with things divine, to satisfy a present interest.
Secondly, this was not the judgment of the ancient church
for three or four hundred years. For whereas the epistles of
Paul were always esteemed the principal treasure of the church,
the great guide and rule of the Christian faith, this of Jamos
was scarce received as canonical by many, and doubted of by
the most, as both Eusebius and Jerome testify.
Thirdly, the design of the Apostle James is not at all to
explain the meaning of Paul in his epistles, as is pretended,
but only to vindicate the doctrine of the gospel from the abuse
of such as used their "liberty for a cloak of maliciousness,''
and "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness," continued
in sin, under a pretence that grace had abounded to that end.
Fourthly, the Apostle Paul does himself, as we have declared,
vindicate his own doctrine from such exceptions and abuses.
Nor have we any other doctrine in his epistles, than what he
preached all the world over, and whereby he laid the founda-
tion of the Christian religion, e'specially among the Gentiles.
These things being premised, I shall briefly evidence that
there is not the least repugnancy or contradiction between
what is declared by these two Apostles, as to our justification,
with the causes of it. And this I shall do, 1. By some general
considerations of the nature and tendency of both their dis-
courses. 2. By a particular explication of tlie context in that
of James. And under the first head I shall manifest, (1) That
they have not the same scope, design or end in their discourses ;
that they do not consider the same question, nor state the same
case, nor determine on the same inquiry, and therefore not
speaking to the same thing, do not contradict one another.
(2) That as faith is a word of various signification in the Scrip-
ture, and as we have proved before, denotes that which is of
divers kinds, they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the
436 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
same kind, and therefore there can be no contradiction in
what the one ascribes to it, and the other derogates from it,
seeing they speak not of the same faith. (3) That they do
not speak o{ justification in the same sense, nor with respect
to the same ends, (4) That as to ivorks they both intend the
same, namely, the works of obedience to the moral law.
1. As to the scope and design of the Apostle Paul, the ques-
tion which he answers, the case which he proposes and de-
termines upon,. are manifest in all his writings, especially his
epistles to the Romans and Galatians. The whole of his pur-
pose is to declare, how a guilty convinced sinner comes,
through faith in the blood of Christ, to have all his sins par-
doned, to be accepted with God, and obtain a right to the
heavenly inheritance, that is, to be acquitted and justified in
the sight of God. And as the doctrine hereof belonged emi-
nently to the gospel, whose revelation and declaration to the
Gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed to him, as we
have lately observed, he had an especial reason to insist much
upon it from the opposition that was made to it by the Jews
and Judaizing Christians, who ascribed this privilege to the
law, and our own works of obedience in compliance therewith.
This is the case he states, this the question he determines in
all his discourses about justification; and in the explication
thereof declares the nature and causes of it, as also vindicates
it from all exceptions. For whereas men of corrupt minds
and willing to indulge their lusts (as all men naturally desire
nothing but what God has made eternally inconsistent, namely,
that they may live in sin here, and come to blessedness here-
after) might conclude that if it were as he declared, that we
are justified freely through the grace of God by the imputa-
tion of a righteousness that originally and inherently is not
our own, then was there no more required of us, no relin-
quishment of sin, no attendance to the duties of righteousness
and holiness, he obviates such impious suggestions, and shows
the consequence of them on the doctrine that he taught. But
this he does not do in any place by intimating or granting
that our own works of obedience or righteousness are neces-
sary to, or have any causal influence upon our justification
before God. Had there been a truth herein, were not a sup-
position thereof really inconsistent with the whole of his doc-
trine and destructive of it, he would not have omitted the plea
of it, nor ought so to have done, as we have shown. And to
suppose that there was need that any other should explain and
CONCERNING FAITH AND AVORKS, 437
vindicate his doctrine from the same exceptions which he takes
notice of, by such a plea as he himself would not make use of
but rejects, is foolish and impious.
The Apostle James on the other hand had no such scope or
design, or any such occasion for what he wrote in this matter.
He does not inquire, or give intimation of any such inquiry;
he does not state the case how a guilty convinced sinner whose
mouth is stopped as to any plea or excuse for himself, may be
justified in the sight of God, that is receive the pardon of sins,
and the gift of righteousness to life. To resolve this question
into our own works is to overthrow the whole gospel. But he
had in hand a business quite of another nature. For as we
have said, there were many in those days who professed the
Christian religion or faith in the gospel, whereon they pre-
sumed that as they were already justified, so there was nothing
more needful to them that they might be saved. A desirable
estate they thought they had attained, suited to all the interest
of the flesh, whereby they might live in sin, and neglect of all
duty of obedience, and yet be eternally saved. Some suppose
that this pernicious conceit was imbibed by them from the
poisonous opinions that some had then divulged, according as
the Apostle Paul foretold that it, would come to pass, 2 Tim.
iv. 1 — 3. For it is generally conceived that Simon 'Magus and
his followers had by this time infected the minds of many with
their abominations, and amongst them this was one, and not
the least pernicious, "that by faith was intended a liberty from
the law, and to sin, or unto them that had it, the taking away
of all difference between good and evil ;" which was afterwards
improved by Basilides, Valentinus and the rest of the Gnos-
tics. Or it may be it was only the corruption of men's hearts
and lives, that prompted them to seek after such a countenance
to sin. And this latter I judge it wag. There were then among
professed Christians, such as the world now swarms with,
\yho suppose that their faith, or the religion v/hich they pro-
fess, be it what it may, shall save them, although they live in
flagitious wickedness, and are utterly barren as to any good
works or duties of obedience. Nor is there any other occasion
of what he writes intimated in the epistle; for' he makes no
mentioFi of seducers, as John does expressly and frequently,
some while after. Against this sort of persons, or for their
conviction he designs two things: (1) In general to prove the
necessity of works to all that profess the- gospel or faith in
Christ thereby. (2) To evidence the vanit;yiand folly of their
9,1* '^V'Tv
w
.438 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
pretence to justification, or that they were justified and should
be saved, by that faith that was indeed so far from being fruit-
ful in good works, that it was pretended by them only to coun-
tenance themselves in sin. To these ends are all his arguings
designed and no other. He proves efl'ectually that the faith
which is wholly barren and fruitless as to obedience, and
which men pretended to countenance themselves in their sins,
is not that faith whereby we are justified, and whereby we
may be saved, but a dead carcass, of no use nor benefit, as
he declares by the conclusion of his whole dispute, in the last
verse of the chapter. He does not direct any, how they may
be justified before God, but convinces some that they are not
justified by trusting to such a dead faith, and declares the only
way whereby any man may really evidence and manifest that
he is so justified indeed. This design of his is so plain, that
nothing can be more evident, and they miss the whole scope
of the Apostle, who observe it not in their expositions of the
context. Wherefore the principal design of the Apostles being
so distant, there is no repugnancy in their assertions, though
their words make an appearance thereof For they do not
speak ad idem^wox of things eodem respectu. .James does not
once inquire how a guilty convinced sinner, cast and condemned
by the law, may come to be justified before God; and Paul
speaks to nothing else. Wherefore apply the expressions of
each of them to their proper design and scope, as we must do,
or we depart from all sober rules of interpretation, and render
it impossible to understand either of them aright, and there is
no disagreement or appearance of it between them. .
Secondly, they speak not of the same faith. Whei*efore there
can be no discrepancy in what one ascribes to faith,' and the
other denies concerning it, seeing they understand not the same
thing thereby, for they speak not of the same faith. As if one
affirms that fire will burn, and another denies it, there is no
contradiction between them, whilst one intends real fire, and
the other only that which is painted, and both declare them-
selves accordingly. For we have proved before that there are
two sorts of faith wherewith men are said to believe the Gos-
pel, and make profession thereof, as also that what belongs to
the one, does not belong to the other; none I suppose will deny
but that by faith in the matter of our justification, Paul intends
that which is properly so called. The faith of God's elect, pre-
cious faith, more precious than gold, the faith that purifies the
heart, and works by love, the faith whereby Christ dwells in
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS, 439
US, and we abide in him, whereby we live to God, a. living
faith, is that alone which he intends. For all these things, and
other spiritual effects without number, he ascribes to that faith
which he insists on, to be on our part the only means of our
justification before God. But as to the faith intended by the
Apostle James, he assigns nothing of all this to it; yea, the only
argument whereby he proves that men cannot be saved by that
faith which he treats of, is that nothing of all this is found in it.
That which he intends is, what he calls it, a dead faith, a car-
cass without breath, the faith of devils, a wordy faith, that is no
more truly what it is called, than it is true charity to send away
naked and hungry persons without relief, but not without deri-
sion. Well may he deny justification in any sense to this faith
however boasted of, when yet it may be justly ascribed to that
faith which Paul speaks of.
Bellarmine uses several arguments to prove that the faith
here intended by James^ is justifying faith considered in itself;
but they are all weak to contempt, as being built on this sup-
position, that true justifying faith is nothing but a real assent to
the catholic doctrine or divine revelation. De Justificat. lib. 1.
cap. 15. His first is, '-that James calls \i faith absolutely,
whereby always in the Scripture true faith is intended." I an-
swer, (I) James calls it a dead faith, the faith of devils, and
casts all manner of reproach upon it, which he would not have
done on any duty or grace truly evangelical. (2) Not every faith
that is true as to the reality of assent which is given by it to
the truth, is either living, justifying, or saving', as has been
proved. (3) They are said to have faith absolutely or abso-
lutely to believe, wiio never had that faith which is true and
saving, John ii. 23. Act. viii. 13. Secondly, he urges "that in
the same place and chapter he treats of the faith of Abraham,
and affirms that it wrought with his works, verses 22, 23. But
this a vain shadow of faith does not do; it was therefore true
faith, and that which is most properly called so, that the Apos-
tle intends." Answer. This pretence is indeed ridiculous.
For the Apostle does not give the faith of Abraham as an in-
stance of that faith vvhich he had treated with so much severity,
but of that which is so directly contrary to it, and whereby he
designed to prove that the other faith which he had reflected
on, was of no use nor advantage to them that had it. For this
faith of Abraham produced good works, which the other was
wholly without. Thirdly, he urges verse 24, "' Ye see then
how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only;'
440 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
For the faith that James speaks of justifies with works, but a
false faith, the shadow of a faith does not so; it is therefore
true saving faith, whereof the Apostle speaks." Answer. He
is utterly mistaken; for the Apostle does not ascribe justifica-
tion partly to works, and partly to faith; but he ascribes justi-
fication in the vsense by him intended, wholly to works in oppo-
sition to that faith concerning which he treats. For there is a
plain antithesis in the words between works and faith as to jus-
tification in the sense by him intended. A dead faith, a faith
without works, the faith of devils is excluded from having any
influence upon justification. Fourthly, he adds " that the Apos-
tle compares this faith without works to a rich man that gives
nothing to the poor, verse 16, and a body without a spirit,
verse 26: wherefore, as that knowledge whereby a rich man
knows the wants of the poor is true and real, and a dead body
is a body; so is faith' without works true faith also, and as such
is considered by Saint James." Answer. These things evi-
dently destroy what they are produced to confirm; only the
Cardinal helps them out with a little sophistry. For whereas
the Apostle compares this faith to the charity of a man that
gives nothing to the poor, he suggests in the room thereof his
"knowledge" of their poverty. And his knowledge may be
true, and the more true and certain it is, the more false and
feigned is the charity which he pretends in these words, " be
fed or clothed." Such is the faith the Apostle speaks of And
although a dead body is a true body, that is, as to the matter
or substance of it, a carcass; yet is it not an essential part of a
living man. A carcass is not of the same nature or kind as is
the body of a living man. And we assert no other diflerence
between the faith spoken of by the Apostle, and that which is
justifying, than what is between a dead breathless carcass and.
a living animated body, prepared and fitted for all vital acts.
Wherefore it is evident beyond all contradiction, if we have
not a mind to be contentious, that what the Apostle James
here derogates from faith as to our justification, respects only
a dead, barren, lifeless faith, such as is usually pretended by
ungodly men to countenance themselves ia their sins. And.
herein the faith asserted by Paul has no concern. The con-
sideration of the present condition of the profession of faith in
the world, will direct us to the best exposition of this place.
Thirdly, they speak not of justification in the same sense
nor to the same end. It is of our absolute justification before
God, the justification of our persons, our acceptance with him
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS. 441
and the grant of a right to the heavenly inheritance, that the
Apostle Paul treats and thereof alone. This he declares in all
the causes of it, all that on the part of God, or on our part,
concurs thereto. The evidence, the knowledge, the sense, the
fruit, the manifestation of it in our own consciences, in the
church, to others that profess the faith, he treats not of, but
speaks of them separately as they occur on other occasions.
The justification he treats of, is but one, and at once accom-
plished before God, changing the relative state of the person
justified, and is capable of being evidenced various ways to
the glory of God and the consolation of them that truly believe.
Hereof the Apostle James does not treat at all; for his whole
inquiry is after the nature of that faith whereby we are justi-
fied, and the only way whereby it may be evidenced to be of
the right kind, such as a man may safely trust to. Wherefore
he treats of justification only as to the evidence and manifes-
tation of it, nor had he any occasion to do otherwise. And
this is apparent from both the instances, whereby he confirms
his purpose. The first, is that of Abraham, ver. 21 — 23. For
he says, that by Abraham being justified by works in the
way and manner wherein he asserts him so to have been,
" the Scripture was fulfilled, which says that Abraham be-
haved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."
And if his intention were to prove that we are justified before
God by works and not by faith, because Abraham was so, the
testimony produced is contrary, yea directly contradictory to
what should be proved by it, and accordingly is alleged by
Paul to prove that Abraham was justified by faith without
works, as the words plainly import. Nor can any man de-
clare, how the truth of this proposition, " Abraham vvas justi-
fied by works," intending absolute justification before God,
was that wherein that Scripture was fulfilled," " Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness;"
especially, considering the opposition that is made both here
and elsewhere between faith and works in this matter. Be-
sides, he asserts that Abraham was justified by works then
when he had ofl'ered his son on the altar; the same we believe
also, but only inquire in what sense he was so justified. For
it was thirty years or thereabout after it was testified concern-
ing him, that he *' believed God, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness;" and when righteousness was imputed to
him, he was justified. And twice justified in the same sense,
in the same way, with the same kind of justification, he was
442
THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
not. How then was he justified by works when he offered
his son on the altar? He that can conceive it to be any other-
wise, but that he was by his work in the offering of his son
evidenced and declared in the sight of God and man to be jus-
tified, apprehends what I cannot attain to, seeing that he was
really justified long before, as is unquestionable and confessed
by all. He was I say then justified in the sight of God, in the
way declared. Gen. xxii. 12; and gave a signal testimony to
the sincerity of his faith and trust in God, manifesting the truth
of that Scripture, "he believed God, and it was imputed unto
him for righteousness." And in the quotation of this testi-
mony the Apostle openly acknowledges that he was really ac-
counted righteous, had righteousness imputed to him, and was
justified before God (the reasons and causes whereof, he there-
fore considers not) long before that justification which he as-
cribes to his works, which therefore can be nothing but the
evidencing, proving and manifestation of it: whence also it
appears of what nature that faith is whereby we are justified,
the declaration whereof is the principal design of the Apostle.
,/ In brief, the alleged Scripture that " Abraham believed, and
it was imputed to him for righteousness," was fulfilled when
he was justified by v/orks on the offering of his son on the
altar, either by the imputation of righteousness to him, or by
a real efficiency or working righteousness in him, or by the
manifestation and evidence of his former justification, or some
other way must be found out. (1) That it was not by impu-
tation, or that righteousness to the justification of life was not
then first imputed to him, is plain in the text; for it was so
imputed to him long before, and that in such a way as the
Apostle proves thereby, that righteousness is imputed without
works. (2) That he was not justified by a real efficiency of a
habit of righteousness in him, or by any way of making him
inherently righteous, who was before unrighteous is plain also,
because he was righteous in that sense long before, and had
abounded in the works of righteousness to the praise of God.
It remains therefore, that then, and by the work mentioned, he
was justified as to the evidencing and manifestation of his
faith and justification thereon. His other instance is of Rahab
concerning whom he asserts that she was justified by works
when she had received the messengers and sent them away.
But she received the spies by faith, as the Holy Ghost wit-
nesses, Heb. xi. 31; and therefore had true faith before their
coming; and if so, was really justified. For that any one
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS. 443
should be a true believer, and yet not be justified, is destruc-
tive of the foundation of the gospel. In this condition she re-
ceived the messengers, and made to them a full declaration of
her faith. Josh. ii. 10, 11. After her believing and justifica-
tion thereon, and after the confession she had made of her
faith, she exposed her life by concealing and sending them
away. Hereby did she justify the sincerity of her faith and
confession, and in that sense alone is said to be justified by
works. And in no other sense does the Apostle James in this
place make mention of justification, which he does also only
occasionally.
Fourthly, as to " works" mentioned by both Apostles, the
same works are intended, and there is no disagreement in the
least about them. For as the Apostle James intends by works,
duties of obedience to God according to the law, as is evident
from the whole first part of the chapter, which gives occasion
to the discourse of faith and works; so the same are intended
by the Apostle Paul also, as we have proved before. And as
to the necessity of them in all believers, both to other ends, and
as evidences of their faith and justification, it is no less pressed
by the one than the other, as has been declared.
These things being in general premised, we may observe
some things in particular from the discourse of the Apostle
James, sufficiently evidencing that there is no contradiction
therein, to what is delivered by the Apostle Paul concerning
our justification by faith and the imputation of righteousness
without works, nor to the doctrine which from him we have
learned and declared; as (1) He makes no composition or con-
junction between faith and works in our justification, but op-
poses them the one to the other, asserting the one and rejecting
the other in order to our justification. (2) He makes no dis-
tinction of a first and second justification, of the beginning and
continuation of justification, but speaks of one justification only
which is our first personal justification before God. Neither
are we concerned in any other justification in this cause what-
ever. (3) He ascribes this justification wholly to works in con-
tradistinction to faith, as to that sense of justification which he
intended, and the faith whereof he treated. Wherefore (4) He
does not at all inquire or determine how a sinner is justified
before God, but how professors of the gospel can prove or de-
monstrate that they are so, and that they do not deceive them-
selves by trusting to a lifeless and barren faith. All these things
will be further evidenced in a brief consideration of the context
itself, wherewith I shall close this discourse.
444 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
In the beginning of the chapter to verse 14, he reproves
those to whom he wrote for many sins committed against the
law, the rule of their sins and obedience, or at least warns
them of them; and having showed the danger they were in
hereby, he discovers the root and principal occasion of it, verse
14, which was no otber but a vain surmise and deceiving pre-
sumption that the faith required in the gospel was nothing but
a bare assent to the doctrine of it, whereon they were delivered
from all obligation to moral obedience or good works, and
might without any danger to their eternal state live in what-
ever sins their lusts inclined them to, chap. iv. 1 — 4; v. 1 — 5,
The state of such persons which contains the whole cause
which he speaks to, and which gives rule and measure to the
interpretation of all his future arguings, is laid down, verse 14.
" What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath
faith and have not works? can faith save him?" Suppose a
man, any one of those who are guilty of the sins charged on
them in the foregoing verses, do yet say, or boast of himself,
that he has faith, that he makes profession of the gospel, that
he has left either Judaism or Paganism, and betaken himself
to the faith of the gospel, and therefore although he be desti-
tute of good works, and live in sin, he is acccepted with God
and shall be saved; will indeed this faith save him? This
therefore is the question proposed: Whereas the gospel saith
plainly, that "he who believeth shall be saved;" whether that
faith which may and does consist with an indulgence in sin,
and a neglect of duties of obedience, is that faith whereto
the promise of life and salvation is annexed? And thereon,
the inquiry proceeds, how any man, in particular he who says
he hath faith, may prove and evidence himself. to have that
faith which will secure his salvation? And the Apostle denies
that this is such a faith as can consist without works, or that
any man can evidence himself to have true faith any otherwise
but by works of obedience only. And in the proof hereof his
whole ensuing discourse consists. Not once does he propose
to consideration the means and causes of the justification of a
convinced sinner before God, nor had he any occasion so to do.
So that his words are openly wrested when they are applied to
any such intention.
That the faith which he intends and describes, is altogether
useless to the end pretended to be attainable by it, namely,
salvation, he proves in an instance of, and by comparing it with
the love or charity of a like nature, verses 15, 16. " If a brother
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS. 445
or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you
say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, not-
withstanding ye give them not those things which are needful
to the body, what doth it profit?" This love or charity is not
that gospel grace which is required of us under that name; for
he who behaves himself thus towards the poor, " the love of
God dwelleth not in him," 1 John iii. 17, whatever name it
may have, whatever it may pretend to, whatever it may be
professed or accepted for, love it is not, nor has any of the
effects of love; it is neither useful nor profitable. Hence the
Apostle infers, verse 17, "Even so faith, if it hath not works,
is dead being alone." For this was what he undertook to
prove, not that we are not justified by faith alone without
works before God, but that the faith which is alone without
works, is dead, useless and unprofitable.
Having given this first evidence to the conclusion which in
thesi he designed to prove, he resumes the question and states
it in hypothesi, so as to give it a more full demonstration,
verse 15. " Yea a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have
works, show me thy faith without thy works, (ihat is, which
is without works; or by thy works) and I will show thee my
faith by my works." It is plain beyond denial, that the Apostle
here again proposes his main question only on a supposition
that there is a dead useless faith, which he had proved before.
For now all the inquiry remaining is how true faith, or that
which is of the right gospel kind, may be shown, evidenced or
demonstrated, so that their folly may appear, who trust to
any other faith whatever. Astlov jwot tviv Ttiativ aov, "evidence
or demonstrate thy faith" to be true by the only means thereof,
which is works. And therefore although he says, " thou hast
faith," that is, thou professest and boastest that thou hast that
faith whereby thou mayest be saved, "and I have works," he
does not say, "show me thy faith by thy works, and I will
show thee my works by my faith," which the antithesis would
require, but " I will show thee my faith by my works," be-
cause the whole question was concerning the evidencing of
faith and not of works.
That this faith which cannot be evidenced by works, which
is not fruitful in them, but consists only in a bare assent to the
truth of divine revelation, is not the faith that justifies or will
save us, he further proves, in that it is no other but what the
devils themselves have; and no man can think or hope to be
saved by that which is common to them with devils, and
38
446 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
wherein they do much exceed them, verse 11. "Thou he-
he vest there is one God; thou dost well; the devils also be-
lieve and tremble." The belief of one God is not the whole
of what the devils believe, but is singled out as the principal
fundamental truth, and on the concession whereof an assent to
all divine revelation necessarily ensues. And this is the second
argument, whereby he proves an empty barren faith to be
dead and useless.
The second confirmation being given to his principal asser-
tion, he restates it in that way, and under those terms wherein
he designed it to its last confirmation. " But wilt thou know,
0 vain man, that faith without works is dead?" verse 20.
And we may consider in the words, (1) The person with
whom he deals whose conviction he endeavoured; him he calls
a " vain man," not in general, as every man living is " alto-
gether vanity," but as one who in an especial manner is
" vainly puffed up in his own fleshly mind," one that has en-
tertained vain imaginations of being saved by an empty pro-
fession of the gospel, without any fruit of obedience. (2) That
which he designs with respect to this vain man is his convic-
tion, a conviction of that foolish and pernicious error that he
had imbibed; "wilt thou know, 0 vain man?" (3) That
which alone he designed to convince him of is, "that faith
without works is dead;" that is, the faith which is without
works, which is barren and unfruitful, is dead and useless.
That alone is all that he undertakes to prove by his follow-
ing instances, and arguings, neither do they prove any more.
To wrest his words to any other purpose when they are all
proper and suited to what he expresses as his only design, is
to offer violence to them.
This therefore he proves by the consideration of the faith of
Abraham, verse 21. " Was not Abraham our father justified
by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"
Some things must be observed to clear the mind of the Apostle
herein. As (1) it is certain that Abraham was justified many
years before the work instanced was performed: for long be-
fore was that testimony given concerning him, "he believed
in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righteousness,"
and the imputation of righteousness upon believing is all the
justification we inquire after or will contend about. (2) It is
certain that in the relation of the story here repeated by the
Apostle, there is not any one word spoken of Abraham's being
then justified before God, by that or any other work whatever.
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS. 447
But (3) it is plain and evident that in the place referred to,
Abraham was declared to be justified by an open attestation to
his faith and fear of God as sincere, and that they had evi-
denced themselves so to be, in the sight of God himself, which
God condescends to express by an assumption of human afiec-
tions, Gen. xxii. 12. "Now I know that thou fearest God,
seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from
me." That this is the justification which the Apostle intends
cannot be denied, but out of love to strife. And this was the
manifestation and declaration of the truth and sincerity of his
faith whereby he was justified before God. And hereby the
Apostle directly and undeniably proves what he produces this
instance for; nameljr, that "faith without works is dead."
(4) It is no less evident that the Apostle had not spoken any
thing before, as to our justification before God, and the means
thereof; audit is therefore absurdly imagined here to introduce
it in the proof of what he had before asserted, which it does
not prove at all. (5) The only safe rule of interpreting the
meaning of the Apostle, next to the scope and design of his
present discourse, which he makes manifest in the reiterated
proposition of it, and the scope of the places, is matter of fact,
with its circumstances which he refers to, and takes his proof
from, and they were plainly these and no other. Abraham
had been long a justified believer, for there were thirty years
or thereabout, between the testimony given thereto, Gen. xv.
and the story of sacrificing his son related Gen. xxii. All this
while he " walked with God, and was upright" in a course of
holy fruitful obedience. Yet it pleased God to put his faith,
after many others, to a new, his greatest, his last trial. And it
is the way of God in the covenant of grace, to try the faith of
them that believe by such ways as seem meet to him. Hereby
he manifests how precious it is (the trial of faith making it
appear to be " more precious than gold," 1 Pet. i. 7,) and
raises up glory to himself, which it is in the nature of faith to
give to him, Rom. iv. 20. And this is the state of the case as
proposed by the Apostle; namely, how it may be tried whether
the faith which men profess be genuine, precious, more pre-
cious than gold, of the right nature with that whereto the gos-
pel promise of salvation is annexed. 2. This trial was made
by works or by one signal duty of obedience prescribed to
him for that very end and purpose. For Abraham was to be
proposed as a pattern to all that should afterwards believe.
And God provided a signal way for the trial of his faith ; namely,
448
THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES
by an act of obedience, which was so far from being enjoined
by the moral law that it seemed contrary to it. And if he be
proposed to us as a pattern of justification by works in the sight
of God, it must be by such works as God has not required in
the moral law, but such as seem to be contrary thereto. Nor
can any man receive any encouragement to expect justification
by works, by telHng him that "Abraham was justified by
works, when he offered up his only son to God;" for it will be
easy for him to say, that as no such work was ever performed
by him, so none such was ever required of him. But 3. Upon
Abraham's compliance with the command of God, given him
in the way of trial, God himself after the manner of men, de-
clares the sincerity of his faith and his justification thereon, or
his gracious acceptance of him. This is the whole design of
the place which the Apostle produces to his purpose; and it
contains the whole of what he was to prove and no more.
Plainly it is granted in it that we are not justified by our
works before God, seeing he instances only a work performed
by a justified believer many years after he was absolutely
justified before God. But this is evidently proved hereby;
namely, that faith without works is dead; seeing justifying faith,
as is evident in the case of Abraham, is that and that alone,
which brings forth works of obedience; for on such a faith alone,
is a man evidenced, declared and pronounced to be justified or
accepted with God. Abraham was not then first justified; he
was not then said to be justified, he was declared to be justified,
and that by and upon his works; which contains the whole of
what the Apostle intends to prove.
There is therefore no appearance of the least contradiction
between this Apostle and Paul who professedly asserts, that
" Abraham was not justified before God by works." For
Jam.es only declares that by the works which he performed
after he was justified, he was manifested and declared so to
be. And that this was the whole of his design, he manifests
in the next verses, where he declares what he had proved by
this instance, ver. 22. " Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Two things
he enforces as proved to the conviction of him, with whom he
had to do. (1) That true faith will operate by works; so did
Abraham's, it was effective in obedience. (2) That it was
" made perfect by works," that is evidenced so to be. For
ri-ksioi, tixecoo/^ai uo whcre in the Scripture signify the internal,
formal perfecting of any thing, but only the external comple-
CONCERNING FAITH AND WORKS. 449
ment or perfection of it, or the manifestation of it. It was
complete as to its proper effect, when he was first justified;
and it was now manifested so to be. See Matt. v. 48. Col. iv.
12. 2 Cor. xii. 9. This, says the Apostle, I have proved in
the instance of Abraham; namely, that it is works of obedi-
ence alone that can evince a man to be justified, or to have
that faith whereby he may be so. (3) He adds in the confir-
mation of what he had affirmed, ver. 23. " And the Scripture
was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the
friend of God."
Two things the Apostle aflirms herein. (1) That the Scrip-
ture mentioned was fulfilled. It was so in that justification by
works which he ascribes to Abraham. But how this Scrip-
ture was herein fulfilled, either as to the time wherein it was
spoken, or as to the thing itself, any otherwise but as that,
which is therein asserted, was evidenced and declared, no man
can explain; what the Scripture affirmed so long before of
Abraham was then evidenced to be most true, by the works
which his faith produced, and so that Scripture was accom-
plished. For otherwise supposing the distinctions made be-
tween faith and works by himself, and the opposition that he
puts between them, adding thereto the sense given of this
place by the Apostle Paul, with the direct import of the
words, and nothing can be more contradictory to his design;
(namely, if he intended to prove our justification before God
by works) than the quotation of this testimony. Wherefore
this Scripture neither was nor can be otherwise fulfilled by
Abraham's justification by works, but only that by and upon
them he was manifested so to be. (2) He adds that hereon
he was called the friend of God. So he is Isa. xli. 8, as also
2 Chron. xx. 7. This is of the same import with his being
justified by works: for he was not thus called merely as a jus-
tified person, but as one who had received singular privileges
from God, and answered them by a holy walking before him.
Wherefore his being called the " friend of God" was God's
approbation of his faith and obedience, which is the justifica-
tion by works that the Apostle asserts.
Hereon he makes a double conclusion (for the instance of
Rahab being of the same nature and spoken to before, I shall
not insist again upon it,) (1) As to his present argument, verse
24. (2) As to the whole of his design, verse 26. The first is,
that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
450 THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JAMES, ETC.
"Ye see then;" you whom I design to convince of the vanity
of that imagination, that you are justified by a dead faith, a
breathless carcass of faith, a mere assent to the truth of the
gospel and profession of it, consistent with all manner of im-
piety, and wholly destitute of good fruits, you may see what
faith it is that is required to justification and salvation. For
Abraham was declared to be righteous, to be justified on that
faith which wrought by works, and not at all by such a faith
as you pretend to. A man is "justified by works" as Abra-
ham was, when he had offered up his son to God. That is,
what he really was by faith long before, as the Scripture testi-
fies, was then and thereby evidenced and declared. And there-
fore 'let no man suppose that by the faith which he boasts
of, any one is or can be justified, seeing that whereon Abra-
ham was declared to be so, was that which evidenced itself by
its fruits. (2) He lays down that great conclusion which he
had evinced by his whole disputation, and which at first he
designed to confirm, verse 26. " For as the body without the
spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." A breath-
less carcass and an unworking faith are alike, as to all the
ends of natural or spiritual life. This was that which the
Apostle designed from the beginning to convince vain and bar-
ren professors of, which accordingly he has given sufficient
reason and testimony for.
THE END.
1
Date Due
l^---
^Clb'b.
N^
OE ^- '50
«m 0 o 'CJjj
s
iei^
f)
.p^^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11